Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Government Stock and ether Securities Investment Company Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Dagenham Urban District Council [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men's widows who have been granted the widows' pension during the last six months ended the 31st March, and the number of those who have been refused?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Precise figures for the half-year ended on 31st ultimo cannot as yet be given, but I understand that out of the total number of claims matte during the period pension will probably be granted in about 840 cases, while the number of claims rejected will be about 660.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why such a large number of them were rejected for special reasons?

Major TRYON: Because all this time after the War other causes naturally operate. Those who served in the War are not exempt from the ordinary vicissitudes and illnesses of civil life.

Mr. CROOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very great dissatisfaction throughout the country at the manner in which these cases are being dealt with?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. I have visited every part of the country, and the hon. Member's statement is not accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government will be ready for presentation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 29th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP HOURS ACT (PROSECUTIONS, BLACKPOOL).

Mr. BRIANT: 3.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to cases in Blackpool where shopkeepers have been induced by agents of shop inspectors to break the laws affecting shop hours; and if it is with his approval that such means are used to secure convictions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases to which he refers, I should be happy to look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ASBESTOS DUST).

Mr. BRIANT: 4.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the dangers to asbestos workers from asbestos dust; if he will take steps to have a periodical examination of the workers; and if inquiry is being made as to the dangers attending this industry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Two cases of suspected danger to health have been recently reported to the Factory Department and the matter is being carefully investigated by the Medical Inspectors. Should their inquiries show that any special precautions are required, the necessary steps for the purpose will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARRESTED IRISHMEN (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Major KINDERSLEY: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that Bank of England notes found on persons described as Irish gunmen, arrested before Easter for being in illegal possession of firearms, have been traced back to a Russian banking institution in this Country, he will make inquiries as to whether any of the moneys
standing to the credit of Russian trading organisations in this Country are being used in attempts to foment and organise revolutionary action here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My honourable and gallant Friend's information is correct. I am constantly making inquiries and am satisfied that Russian money is being used as suggested in the question.

Major KINDERSLEY: Will His Majesty's Government make representations to the League of Nations that a Power which uses the fomenting of revolution as an instrument of policy, should not be associated with its deliberations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a matter on which I should have to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Home Secretary kindly make clear what the question means as well as the answer? During the process of circulation a particular banknote may have passed through two dozen banks, different British banks. Does he insinuate that this note went directly from the Russian bank to the person in whose possession it was found, or does he mean that during the process of circulation the note passed through a certain bank several times, as through any other hank, before passing into the hands of the person in whose possession it was found?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have answered the question. It is not for me to explain what the question means. The question asked whether certain notes had been found and whether they had been traced to a Russian bank. That is correct.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I hope the Home Secretary does not want to be an instrument for the spreading of untruth. Does he mean that the note was traced back immediately to the Russian bank before it came to the culprit, or does he mean that it was also in the Russian bank just as much as it was in two dozen other banks before it came to the culprit?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member can tell me that it passed through two dozen banks between its issue by the Rusian bank and its receipt
by the culprit, I shall be prepared to consider the information which he gives. I am satisfied that the note found in the possession of the gunman had quite recently been issued by the Russian bank.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Are the persons concerned accurately described as Irish?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the seriousness of the statement that he has made in answer to the question, as affecting the possible future relations between this country and Russia, and has he satisfied himself that his sources of information are as reliable as those which produced the Zinovieff letter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was not in office at the time of the Zinovieff letter, and I am not responsible for the Foreign Office. All that I am responsible for is my own Department, and I am quite satisfied that the information is thoroughly accurate and can be substantiated in every detail.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the recent report of the Boilermakers' Union in regard to the activities of Soviet agents in that union?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask another question of the Home Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we have had quite enough questions on this subject to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (POINT DUTY).

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Home Secretary the number of hours policemen directing traffic in the Metropolitan area are engaged in each duty period; and what break, if any, is allowed them for meals during this period?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Almost all the Metropolitan police engaged in regulating traffic are employed for a duty period of eight hours, including a break of half an hour for refreshment.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the period too long, in view of the very great strain that this kind of work entails? Cannot
the right hon. Gentleman make some other arrangement, whereby the men would not be employed for such a long period of time on this work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no evidence at ail of any strain or of any complaint from the police themselves.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policemen have complained to me about the heavy strain which the work involves?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: While I do not wish to depreciate the importance of the hon. Member, I cannot accept complaints from the police through him. If they have any complaints to make, will the hon. Member tell them to communicate with their chief officer or with the Secretary of State?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS (BETTING).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 8.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the publication by professional bookmakers during recent Parliamentary by-elections of odds for or against the different candidates; if he is aware of the danger which may result from the interference of betting with the free functioning of the polls; and whether he will consider the introduction of a short Measure to make betting at Parliamentary and local elections illegal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has not officially been called to this matter. If there is any evidence that the practice is rife and causes harm I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. MALONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the issue of betting figures is likely to influence the electors for or against a particular candidate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree that, if anything of the kind took place on any sufficient scale to influence elections, it would be exceedingly improper, but I have no official evidence of the kind. If the hon. Member will submit evidence, I will inquire into it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of this authentic information is published in the columns of the "Daily Herald"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — DULWICH COLLEGE (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mr. AMMON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the executive of the National Union of Teachers with respect to the withdrawal of free places at Dulwich College, in which suggestions are made for the revision of schemes and the widening of the scope of educational foundations which have increased in value or the objects of which are met by the public education service, so as to provide an increased number of leaving scholarships from secondary schools to universities and similar educational institutions to be available for pupils from unendowed aided and maintained secondary schools; and whether it is intended to take such action as suggested?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to, but he does not think that the suggestions contained in it would be practicable. If an increased number of scholarships tenable at universities and similar institutions is needed in any particular area, it is within the competence of the local authority for higher education to provide them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE CENTRES.

Mr. PALIN: 10.
asked the Minister of Health the number of maternity and child welfare centres in existence in England and Wales at the present time, and the figures at this time last year?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The total number of these centres known to my Department was 2,685 at the beginning of the present month, as compared with 2,575 at this time last year.

HOP-PICKERS (BY-LAWS).

Mr. BRIANT: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to a statement by the Medical Officer of Health for Kent, in which it is stated that the by-laws affecting the conditions of hop-pickers have not been adopted in their entirety and also attributing negli-
gence in their enforcement by the local authorities; and, in view of the danger to the health of the hop-pickers and also the neighbourhoods in which they temporarily reside, whether he will see that the by-laws are uniformly adopted and enforced?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 21.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a recent address by the county Medical Officer of Health for Kent referring to the sanitary conditions of some hop-picking camps, and the administration of certain rural district councils in connection therewith; and what proceedings, if any, he proposes to take to remedy the conditions referred to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. This address and a report made by the Medical Officer of Health are receiving my consideration. I have no power to compel a local authority either to adopt or to enforce by-laws on this subject, but I have represented to the local authorities the importance of their administrative functions in this matter and, if necessary, I shall continue to do so.

Mr. BRIANT: Have the inspectors of the right hon. Gentleman's Department who have visited the hop fields confirmed in their reports the report of this medical officer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme gravity of the matter, not only to the hop-pickers themselves but to the surrounding country, and, if his powers are not sufficient to deal with the authorities concerned, will he seek further powers in order that he may deal with them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That depends on other considerations.

AUTOMATIC REFRIGERATOR MACHINES.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the poisonous gases contained in small automatic refrigerator machines, adequate measures have been taken for their inspection and for the protection of those who use them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any danger to health has resulted from the use of these machines, but I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend may be able to give me upon the subject.

Mr. PETO: I addressed this question to the Home Secretary. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the duty of the Ministry of Health to inspect these machines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Ministry of Health is responsible for public health, and, if these machines are dangerous to the public health, I suppose they would come under my jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Mr. E. BROWN: 12.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities, to the latest available date, who are taking advantage of the Act of 1923 to co-operate with building societies in the provision of houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the power given to local authorities to guarantee the repayment of any advances, with interest thereon, made by building and other societies. Up to the 30th September last, the latest date for which complete information is available, 84 local authorities had given such guarantee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the Report of the East Sussex Insurance Committee with regard to a case in Hove, where it is alleged that the panel doctor was visited by a regional medical officer of the Ministry, who criticised his methods of prescribing, and that subsequently the doctor was threatened with action on the part of the Ministry unless he prescribed medicines of a cheaper character; and what was the reason for such an interference with the jurisdiction and authority of the panel committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to this case and I am carefully considering the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I must point out,
however, that the visit of the regional officer was in fact directed to ascertaining, in accordance with the Medical Benefit Regulations, whether the case was one which should be referred to the panel committee and that the warning issued to the doctor indicated that in certain circumstances such a reference might have to be made.

Captain FRASER: 19.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the value of massage and electro-therapeutic treatments in hastening the return to physical fitness of persons who suffer from accident or disease, causing loss of time or efficiency in industry, he will consider making these treatments an additional benefit in national health insurance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the National Health Insurance Bill now before the House provision is made for the inclusion in the list of additional benefits of a new benefit under which approved societies will be able to make payments towards the cost of massage and electro-therapeutic treatment of their members in approved institutions.

Captain FRASER: May I ask whether the answer means that massage will be a direct additional benefit, or will it be given indirectly through institutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It takes the form of a new benefit. Power is given to make contributions towards the cost of massage.

Captain FRASER: 20.
asked the Minister of Health what regulations or principles will be observed in deciding whether the earnings from his employment or regular occupation of a man in receipt of a full disability pension represent a substantial proportion of his weekly income, under the qualifying conditions for full sickness and disability benefits of Section 60, Sub-section (1), of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, as amended by the National Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill, as at the Second Reading on 3rd April, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It rests with a man's approved society to determine in the first instance whether the remuneration derived from his employment or occupation in any week is such as to provide a substantial contribution towards his means of livelihood, and, if dissatis-
fied with the decision of his society, the man has a right of appeal in accordance with the rules of the society, and ultimately to the Minister. This is not a matter for regulations, and I have no reason to think that societies apply the provisions of the Sub-section in a harsh or unreasonable manner, but if any case of apparent hardship were brought to my notice, I should be ready to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUAL WARDS (INFECTIOUS DISEASES).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 16.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Grimsby Town Council urging that the law be amended so as to provide for the detention and isolation of small-pox or other contact cases from casual wards of Poor Law institutions; and if he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on the 5th March.

Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman had further powers to enforce vaccination?

Mr. BROMLEY: 17.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the advisability of amending the existing law, to empower medical officers of health to detain and isolate, if necessary, persons who have been in contact with, or are suspected of suffering from, small-pox or other infectious disease when in casual wards of Poor Law institutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) on the 5th March.

CHILD'S DEATH (CHESTER-LE-STREET).

Mr. LAWSON: 18.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the death in hospital of a child six years of age named Mary Race, of
Chester-le-Street, when the doctor stated, at a meeting of the joint hospital board on 10th April, that the child was debilitated and emaciated and had no resisting power to the disease from which it was suffering, and that it had not the ordinary strength of a child of its years; if he is aware that the appointed guardians of Chester-le-Street have been granting £1 a week relief for the maintenance of Mrs. Race and her four children, the father being unemployed and receiving neither benefit nor relief; and whether, in view of the doctor's statement, he has caused investigation to be made into the connection between the death of this child and the failure of the appointed guardians to grant adequate relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of this case and of the allegation made as to the child's condition. My present information does not support the view that there is any connection between the death of the child and the amount of relief given in respect of it, but I propose to make further inquiry as soon as I have received the report of which the hon. Member has promised me a copy.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the deputation appointed by the Joint Hospital Board has investigated this case and has discovered that there is real distress in the house, in which a mother, four children and a father, who served as a soldier for four and a-half years, live?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When I get a copy of the report which the hon. Member is going to let me have I will go into the matter further.

Mr. BATEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 20s. a week is a reasonable amount for an ex-service man, his wife and four children?

Mr. LAWSON: Do I understand from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman is having an independent investigation made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am waiting for the report which the hon. Member is going to send me.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask whether it is not the case that I said I would give him the report if he desired it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the hon. Member is going to give me a report.

Mr. BATEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to approach these appointed guardians and ask them to change their policy and give more than 20s. a week to an ex-service man, his wife and four children?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OPERATIONS).

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the aggregate increase in the nominal amount of the National Debt through conversion operations from November, 1924, to the present time; and what is the annual saving of interest by these conversions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) on the 15th November last and to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on the 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTBALL CUP TICKETS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).

Mr. COMPTON: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the action of a booking agent, who has purchased several thousand tickets from the Football Association for the final of the football cup, in charging 2s. extra on all tickets under and up to 10s. in value and 4s. on tickets over that value; and whether any Entertainments Duty is paid on the extra price charged for the tickets?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, but in general fees charged by outside booking agents for the convenience of booking are not regarded as payments for admission to an entertainment.

Mr. DENNISON: Has the attention of the Financial Secretary been drawn to the fact that a firm describing itself as the Star Printers, of Charlotte Street,
London, is selling 2s. tickets for 10s. each, and other tickets in the same proportion? Can he take any action in this matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will send me particulars I will make it my business to look into it.

Mr. COMPTON: Are we to understand that the Department does not charge Entertainments Duty on these excess profits?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at leaflet No. 17258 he will see the whole case defined there.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it not be a good thing, in cases of gross profiteering such as this, to make the Football Association responsible for the collection of the extra duty and thus compel them to keep better control over the tickets?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY AND PRICE STABILISATION.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the resolution carried at the International Conference at Genoa in 1922, whether the Treasury were consulted by the Bank of England with regard to the scope of the international meeting of delegates of central banks now being held in Paris; and whether he can now indicate a date when the proposals for the further meeting to deal with currency and price stabilisation adumbrated at Genoa, are likely to be implemented?

Mr. SAMUEL: The meeting at Paris of which I am aware, is concerned, I understand, solely with statistics, and the Treasury are not specially concerned in it. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the previous statements by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject, except that I believe that the co-operation among central banks, to which reference has more than once been made, is continually increasing.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL TRAINING CENTRES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is
aware that the two agricultural training centres now in existence, being in East Anglia, are too far away to be of use to South Wales; and whether, in order to afford unemployed miners in that area the fullest facilities for agricultural training with a view to farm work overseas, he will establish one or more similar training centres in the Vale of Glamorgan, the Swansea Valley, Monmouthshire, or elsewhere within easy reach of the South Wales coalfield?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. The existing centres are open to men from any part of the country, and free travelling facilities are provided. Should it be decided, however, to open other centres, the possibility of establishing one in Wales will be carefully considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the exceptional distress in the North Staffordshire coalfield, will the hon. Member see that one of these training centres is established there?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot say more than I have said. The whole matter is under consideration.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be given?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I cannot, except that it is now under consideration.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, SCOTLAND.

Mr. E. BROWN: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons, women, men, and juveniles, have been refused unemployment benefit, in Scotland, during the three months ended 25th March, 1928, because of failure to fulfil the statutory conditions relating to extended benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the three months ended 12th March, 1928, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local employment committees in Scotland was 110,959, of which 91,701 were recommended for allowance and 19,258 for disallowance.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND DRAINAGE, WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information to show the approximate acreage in Wales of land now agriculturally valueless owing to lack of drainage, and of agricultural land which requires considerable further drainage to raise it to its full value; and what large areas are most in need of drainage?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am unable to give an estimate of the acreage of land in Wales now agriculturally valueless owing to lack of drainage, but it is estimated that 143,000 acres are capable of improvement by drainage, of which 115,000 acres are urgently in need of drainage. These figures refer to improvement by means of arterial drainage and do not include land which might be improved by ordinary field drainage.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that any part of this acreage will be dealt with during the present year?

Mr. GUINNESS: I must have notice of that question.

LITERATURE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the informative literature issued by his Department is too little read by farmers owing to its not being presented in a sufficiently popular and convincing form; and whether he will employ publicity specialists to draft all instructional literature on propagandist lines?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware that the literature issued by my Department is not read as extensively as it might be, although the circulation is by no means inconsiderable, but I am unable to agree that the reason is that suggested. I cannot see my way to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he cannot do so?

Mr. GUINNESS: The presentation of technical matters is a very specialised task, and I do not think it lends itself to the propagandist methods which seem to be in the mind of the hon. Member.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not that prove that the agricultural department is very ineffective?

Mr. GUINNESS: There have been some technical publications, such as the one which was recently issued, in connection with Rations for Live Stock which reached a circulation of 19,000.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (IMPORTED MEAT).

Mr. HURD: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the lesions which indicate foot-and-mouth disease are most apparent in the head and feet of animals, he rill issue a regulation that in all future importations of chilled meat from the Argentine or elsewhere the head, tongue included, and feet are attached to the carcass?

Mr. GUINNESS: The suggested regulation would not be effective in preventing the importation of possibly infective carcases because animals may be killed when in the incubative stages of the disease before they develop lesions, and their carcases do not show recognisable signs of the disease. To prevent carcases of animals which have been killed when in the incubative stages of the disease from being imported into Britain, the Ministry requested the South American Governments not only to prohibit the export to Britain of all carcases of infected animals, but also of any animals which had been in immediate contact with them, and laws have been passed by those Governments to give effect to the Ministry's suggestions. I am confident that these laws will be effectively enforced and that they will afford a greater protection than

The following STATEMENT shows (in terms of grain) the quantities of the total imports of Wheat and of Wheat Meal and Flour into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered during the year 1927 and the first three months of 1928; and the proportions which such imports bear to the total imports of Wheat, Wheat Meat and Flour.


—
Year 1927.
Jan. to March, 1928.



Tons.
Tons


Total Imports of Wheat (Grain)
5,521,791
1,323,271


Total Imports of Wheat Meal and Flour (approximate Grain equivalent).
760,885
160,558


Proportion of total imports of Wheat, Wheat Meal and Flour:
Per cent.
Per cent.


Wheat
87.9
89.2


Wheat Meal and Flour
12.1
10.8


The grain equivalent of imported meal and flour has been estimated on the basis of an extraction of 72 per cent. flour and 28 per cent. offals.

the regulation suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HURD: Is the Minister aware of the fact that the agricultural community here is profoundly disturbed at the present position, and does he not think that it wants reviewing?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think it would be sound to adopt the illusory safeguard of imposing an obligation in regard to the importing of these heads and feet, seeing that they would not necessarily show infection.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on that point he is in disagreement with high scientific opinion?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am not aware of that fact. I think there has never been any dispute on the point, but that there is overwhelming evidence that carcases may be infected without the infection being shown.

WHEAT AND WHEAT OFFALS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. HURD: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade for the latest available period, the proportions of wheat imported in the form of milled flour and whole grain, respectively; and the volume and grades of imported and exported wheat offals?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The answer takes the form of tables of figures, and my hon. Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total quantities of Bran and Pollard and of Sharps and Middlings imported into and exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered during the year 1927 and the first three months of 1928 are as follows:—


—
Year 1927.
January to March, 19.8.


Total Imports:
…
…
…
Tons.
Tons.


Bran and pollard
…
…
…
145,818
39,906


Sharps and middlings
…
…
…
66,507
25,350


Exports of United Kingdom Produce:







Bran and pollard
…
…
…
51,871
9,312


Sharps and middlings
…
…
…
4,959
1,765


Exports of Imported Produce:



Bran and pollard
…
…
…
1,377
536


Sharps and middlings
…
…
…
626
181

All the above figures are provisional.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT PRICES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the fact that Scotch and English meat has gone up about 1½d. a pound wholesale in the last week, and that butchers are charging 3d. to 4d. a pound more, he is prepared to remove the existing embargo against the importation of certain kinds of meat?

Mr. GUINNESS: There has been some recovery in the wholesale prices of British beef and mutton from the low levels obtaining in January last. This upward movement has been specially marked over the past week owing to the prevalence of a keener demand. The level of pork prices is practically unaltered. I can see no reason for considering any modification of the existing embargo on the importation of fresh meat from the Continent, which was imposed on disease grounds, and in any case is totally unrelated to the recent rise in prices of beef and mutton.

Mr. THORNE: Surely the Minister of Agriculture must see that an embargo upon various kinds of foreign meat is the means of jumping up the price; and does he not recognise that the workers of this country who have to pay one penny a pound extra for their meat, are being robbed of the opportunities of purchasing other commodities?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think the embargo has had any effect—

Mr. THORNE: Rubbish!

Mr. GUINNESS: —on the price of beef or mutton. The embargo applies almost entirely to veal and pork, and, if the hon. Member examines the figures since the beginning of the year, he will see that there has been no rise in the cost of pork.

Mr. THORNE: What is the embargo put on for, if riot for the purpose of raising the price of meat?

Mr. GUINNESS: The purpose of the embargo is to prevent infected pig carcases from coming in.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's original answer that he regards an increase in the cost of living as a recovery?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member cannot have heard my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOWEIT (BRITISH FORCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Koweit is still occupied by British forces; and how long it is proposed to occupy this territory?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. At the desire of the Shaikh of Koweit naval ratings were landed from His Majesty's ships in the Persian Gulf to assist the Shaikh in defending his territory against Akhwan raids. An armoured-car section and a flight of aeroplanes were also detached from the Iraq garrison for this purpose. The naval landing parties have now been
re-embarked, and it is hoped that the detachments from Iraq will also be withdrawn in the near future. My right hon. Friend is not yet, however, in a position to state definitely when this withdrawal will be effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE TIMBER (EXHIBITION).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the exhibition of Empire timber now showing at the Imperial Institute; and, if so, whether he has taken any and, if so, what steps to bring it to the notice of traders generally in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have been asked to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade. Yes, Sir. All trade associations likely to be interested in this exhibition have been circularised, as well as a number of other bodies, including architects' associations and technical schools. Many of these bodies have already sent representatives to visit the exhibition, and others are to follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABANDONED TIN MINES.

Mr. KELLY: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines what steps are being taken by his Department to catalogue abandoned tin mines; and do such steps include inspection by his Department before including mines in such catalogue?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The catalogue of plans of abandoned mines has been prepared in the interests of safety, and is intended to assist owners of mines or those proposing to sink shafts to ascertain where plans of neighbouring abandoned mines can be inspected. For this purpose it is not necessary for the abandoned mines themselves to be inspected by my Department. It has been decided to publish the catalogue in sections as the work of examining and classifying the plans is completed in the different areas.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any idea as to when these sections will be published?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. Of course, it will be when the work of
examining and classifying the plans has been completed, and I hope that, will be before long. I do not think there will be any great delay.

Commander WILLIAMS: What possibility is there of making a complete catalogue of these mines, some of which have been abandoned for over 2,000 years?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAD MINING.

Mr. KELLY: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of men employed in lead-mining operations in Great Britain, and the districts where such men are engaged?

Commodore KING: The number of persons employed in 1927 at mines at which lead was the principal mineral produced, and in prospecting or development work, was 2,249. Of these persons, 1,094 were employed in the North of England, 419 in the Midlands, 315 in Wales and the Isle of Man, 381 in Scotland, and 40 in Cornwall.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERAL RIGHTS, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received Reports as to the difficulty of securing the working rights for minerals in the tin-mining area of Cornwall; and, if so, will he take steps to facilitate matters so that those who are willing to work the minerals may have the opportunity?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. No such cases have been reported to my Department. If there are any I suggest that the interested parties should consider the terms of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.

Mr. KELLY: Do I understand that, if cases are brought to his notice, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will go into them?

Commodore KING: I will make inquiries, but I think the hon. Member will find that there are already powers under that Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY EXPLOSION, LEEDS.

Mr. LUNN: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that three men lost their lives as the result of an explosion
at the Temple Pit, Waterloo Main Colliery, Leeds, on Friday last; and whether he proposes to set up a Government inquiry into the causes of the explosion?

Commodore KING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the investigations which are being carried out by His Majesty's inspectors have not yet been completed; but the case does not at present appear to be one in which a public inquiry will be necessary in addition to the Coroner's Inquest.

Mr. LUNN: Is that the report from His Majesty's inspector; and has the hon. and gallant Gentleman given consideration to the evidence at the inquest by the widows of the men who lost their lives in this unfortunate disaster? May I put down this Question again for Tuesday next, so that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have further time to consider it, before giving a definite reply as to whether an inquiry shall be held or not?

Commodore KING: I shall be pleased to give the information as soon as I have it. As I have said in my answer, the investigations of the inspector are not yet completed. When they are completed the adjourned inquest will take place. It has been adjourned until the inspector's report can be considered, and I do not think that, when the inquest is over, there will be need for an inquiry.

Mr. LUNN: I asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman had he considered, or would he consider, the evidence given at the inquest by the widows of these men. In view of that evidence, does he not think that an inquiry is necessary? At all events, may I put down the Question for Tuesday next so that he may have further time to consider the matter?

Commodore KING: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEBRIDEAN STEAMER SERVICES.

Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further statement to make on the Hebridean steamer service?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to answer this question. The new contract with Messrs. David MacBrayne Limited for the Western Highlands and Islands steamer services has been signed, and is about to be laid before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (CONTRIBUTIONS TO JOURNALS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the contributions to current journalism being made or announced from the pens of the Secretary of State for India and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; whether these contributions, actual and prospective, are a violation of the pledge announced in reply to questions on 18th June, 1925, and amplified on 7th December, 1925; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The Chancellor of the Exchequer informs me that any literary contributions which he may publish while in office will strictly conform to the conditions I laid down in my statement on this subject on the 3rd March, 1927. In that statement I gave a full and carefully considered account of the conditions which should be observed by Members of the present Administration. I drew a clear distinction between journalistic articles on questions of current party controversy and Departmental matters on the one hand, and literary, historical or philosophical writings on the other: and I had also in mind the difference which clearly exists in practice between publications in daily or weekly newspapers and publications in books or magazines. For this latter class, as I pointed out, there are numerous respectable precedents over a long period of time and under many Governments. I see no reason to modify the statement which I then made.
With reference to the Secretary of State for India, his articles on the subject of criminology fall within the class I defined as permissible, and I understand they will be shortly published in the form of a book. A single article upon the subject of the position of women in modern life appears from its topic to touch the fringe of current controversy, and to touch it in a sense different from the general view of the Government; but
my Noble Friend informs me that it treats the subject in so general a form that he had not expected exception would be taken to it on this ground.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Birkenhead's series which was brought to a premature close in 1925 as a result of the Prime Minister's ban was exactly of the same character and for the same periodical as that which is now appearing? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that two pledges were given to the House? There is a second one which he did not quote. On 7th March, 1927, he said:
The prohibition is perfectly clear; it is a prohibition against writing articles in the Press."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1927; col. 840, Vol. 203.]
Is that position still maintained by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask a further question? Does the Prime Minister not consider that the reply given this afternoon considerably modifies his own former statement on the matter; and that the statement of his Noble Friend indicates a real difference between his Noble Friend and the Cabinet on current politics?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, the distinction as to what is journalism and what is not is a very fine distinction, and a very difficult thing to decide upon. The answer which I have given is quite clear and is within the terms of the considered answer on the whole subject which I gave on 3rd March, 1927.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he still holds to the opinion or to the decision which he announced in this House on the 7th March, 1927, he used these words:
The prohibition is perfectly clear; it is a prohibition against writing articles in the Press.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not consider that this is an article in the Press. I said the distinction was very fine. There has been a practice of recent years, which is a modern practice, that when books are being compiled, portions of those books very often appear before publication. That is a state of things which did not exist many years ago.
This particular chapter which has appeared is an isolated chapter of a work on which my Noble Friend has been engaged for some time, and which he will have time to complete at some future date in his leisure, hut if in this matter there has been an error of judgment on his part, that is the worst that I can say.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the Prime Minister recollect the fact that the late Mr. Gladstone frequently contributed to the "Nineteenth Century" during the time he was Prime Minister articles which were non-political?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the respectable precedents to which I alluded.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the Prime Minister realise, when he speaks of the indirect nature of Lord Birkenhead's contribution, that in this article, Lord Birkenhead definitely refers to an occasion when he spoke against the enfranchisement of women, and says that he stands on these views?

The PRIME MINISTER: Doubtless the hon. Member will recollect that in the time of the Coalition Government Lord Birkenhead introduced the Enfranchisement Bill in the House of Lords giving votes to women.

Mr. SKELTON: Is it not the case that even those with the most elementary knowledge of literature are aware that the monthly and quarterly magazines are never described as the "Press"?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Mr. WELLOCK: 46.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the reasons why the average price paid for land by the Commissioners rose from 57s. 6d. per acre of plantable land in 1923 to 80s. in 1927?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I have been asked to reply. The main reason why the average price paid by the Forestry Commissioners for land in 1927 was higher than in 1923 was that the 1927 areas included more of the following assets, namely: (a) timber and
young plantations; (b) houses; and (c) agricultural land which will be used for agricultural holdings or disposed of.

Mr. WELLOCK: 47.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what proportion of the afforestation grants made by the Commissioners in each of the last three years went to local authorities and to private individuals, respectively?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Of the afforestation grants made by the Forestry Commissioners in 1925 13 per cent. went to local authorities, in 1926 4 per cent. and in 1927 5 per cent. The remainder went to private individuals.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. DAY: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been arirved at by the Government of India in making Regulations to prohibit the employment of women underground in various classes of mines; and is he able to state the exact position and what progress has been made with the Provincial Governments and other authorities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Government of India have completed their consultation with local Governments and have drafted Regulations which, as pre-

Year.
Military Expenditure (including Marine).
Total Expenditure (Central and Provincial) charged against Revenue.
Gross Military Expenditure as a percentage of Total Expenditure.


Gross.
Net.





Rs.
Rs.
Rs.
Per cent.


1913–14*
…
…
31,89,86,475
29,84,41,695
1,24,34,21,280
25.7


1920–21
…
…
88,23,24,251
81,75,37,319
2,32,16,63,582
38.0


1926–27
…
…
60,91,63,889
55,96,95,825
2,21,82,69,696
27.5


1927–28†
…
…
56,72,49,000
54,92,00,000
2,19,04,11,744
25.9


* 1913–14 figures (given in sterling in the accounts) have been converted at Rs. 15 to £1.


† 1927–28: The figures are those of the Budget Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the conversations that have taken place between His Majesty's Foreign

scribed by the Mines Act, were referred to the Mining Boards; the views of the Mining Boards have now been received and examined, and after certain minor points have been settled in consultation with the Chief Inspector the draft will be published for general information; it will be taken into final consideration not less than three months from that date, and the Regulations can then be promulgated and take effect; this procedure is prescribed by the Act.

Mr. DAY: Will the Noble Lord say when it is hoped to publish these Regulations?

Earl WINTERTON: I stated that in my reply to the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE EXPENDITURE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total sum spent by the Government of India upon defence purposes in the following years, 1913, 1920, 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively; and the percentage of the total budget represented by these figures in their respective years?

Earl WINTERTON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The figures for the financial years most nearly corresponding to the periods named are as follows:

Office and the French Foreign Ministry on the subject of disarmament or the limitation of armaments by agreement and, in particular, those conversations relating to naval armaments; whether any agreement in principle was reached;
and whether the subject of the construction of submarines in peace and their use in war was investigated and, if so, with what result?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Informal discussions took place at Geneva last month to investigate the possibility of obtaining agreement on a classification of naval armaments which could be included in the draft convention now being prepared by the Preparatory Committee for the Disarmament Conference. No conclusions have yet been reached, and it is still too early to make any statement as to the probable outcome. The building and employment of submarines were not touched upon in these conversations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the very important question of submarines was not discussed in view of the declaration of the American Secretary of State on this subject, and the willingness now of America to join with us in abolishing the submarine?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I said that the matter was not discussed in the specific conversations to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman particularly refers. Our views are quite well known on the question of submarines and have already been made public.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely no agreement can be come to without an agreement on submarines; why was it not discussed?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH CONSULATE, NANKING).

Mr. DAY: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has been come to by the British Government with reference to the question of lodging a claim for the occupation of the British Consulate in Nanking by Nationalist troops; and whether this claim has been lodged with the Nationalist authorities?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No specific claim for reparation for the occupation of these premises has been lodged. His Majesty's Government regard this matter
as being covered by the statement in Mr. Eugene Chen's reply of the 14th of April, 1927, that
The Nationalist Government are prepared to make good all damage done to the British Consulate at Nanking on the ground that, whether or not such damage was caused by Northern rebels and others, as stated in the preliminary statements issued by the Nationalist Government on the 31st of March last, the fact remains that a British Consulate on Chinese territory has been violated.

Mr. DAY: Is it intended to lodge a claim for this amount and how will the amount be arrived at?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. Member knows that negotiations are now proceeding with the Nanking Government on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (TOWN POLICE MISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can yet make any statement as to the restoration to the town police mission in Greece of the powers originally allotted to them, and of which they were deprived by the Pangalos Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have received no further information on the subject since the date of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question on the 15th of February last, and I will ask His Majesty's Minister at Athens for a report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If this report on the work of Sir Frederick Halliday and his police is satisfactory, will His Majesty's Government press for the carrying out of the terms of the contract which were originally entered into?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think, as there is every reason to suppose that Sir Frederick Halliday's services have been appreciated by the Greek Government, the result will be satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (WAR RENUNCIATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government is taking with respect to the Note received from the Government of the United States of America inviting
His Majesty's Government to adhere to a treaty for the outlawry of war and enclosing a preliminary draft treaty for that purpose?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Note which the United States Ambassador addressed to His Majesty's Government on the 13th of April is receiving most careful and sympathetic consideration and will form the subject of consultations with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we in any way bound to consult with the French Government before answering?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The French Government have informed us that they are about to send us a Note, now in course of preparation, enclosing a draft treaty embodying the French Government's views, and, therefore, it would be premature to consult them at the moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not make myself clear. Beyond consulting the Dominions, are we in any way bound to consult the French Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The French Government, as I say, are sending us a Note embodying their own views, and doubtless we shall exchange opinions on this particular matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the opinions of the French Government and the American Government differ on this subject, can we be assured that this House will have the opportunity of considering the matter before the Government definitely commits us to the French point of view?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That really is not a question that ought to be addressed to me.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman read a report saying that the French Government wish to exempt from the outlawry of war disputes affecting national honour or their vital interests?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must see questions affecting other Governments before they are put down on the Order Paper.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I submit that the questions asked by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) affect other Governments, and every question on foreign relations affects other Governments, so that if we are to be prohibited from putting them in the House, we shall not be allowed to ask ask questions on foreign relations at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was putting something into the mouth of a foreign Government. It is that to which I object, it being a question that I should see before it is put.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUBMARINES (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. THURTLE: 54.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on how many occasions since the War submarines have remained submerged through accident or mechanical defect with the result that lives have been lost?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Five, Sir.

ENGINEERING PERSONNEL.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 55.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give in detail the numbers of each rank and rating of engineering personnel in 1928; and whether the number of engineer commanders, engineer lieutenants, and commissioned engineers will be fully maintained, or whether the number of these officers is reduced by 5, 17 and 17, respectively, as a result of retirements during 1928?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The combined lists of engineer commanders and commanders (E), and those of engineer lieutenants and lieutenants (E) will be maintained at the number necessary to meet the requirements of the Service. Promotion to the rank of commissioned engineer is obtained on the completion of 10 years' service as warrant engineer, and is, therefore, dependent upon that. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the numbers of the engineering personnel.

Following are the particulars:

The numbers of engineer officers and ratings on the Active List on the 1st April, 1928, were as follow:


Engineer Vice-Admiral
1


Engineer Rear-Admiral
10


Engineer Captain
48


Engineer Commander
197


Commander (E)
33


Engineer Lieut.-Commander
98


Lieut.-Commander (E)
40


Engineer Lieutenant
64


Lieutenant (E)
179


Sub-Lieutenant (E)
44


Mate (E)
10


Midshipman (E)
126


Commissioned Engineer
190


Warrant Engineer
268


Commissioned Mechanician
16


Warrant Mechanician
9


Chief Engine Room Artificer
781


Engine Room Artificer
2,440


Engine Room Artificer Apprentice
565


Chief Mechanician
61


Mechanician
246


Chief Stoker
837


Stoker Petty Officer
3,099


Leading Stoker
3,162


Stoker, First Class
11,333


Stoker, Second Class
1,322


Total
25,179

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETIES.

Mr. E. BROWN: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of building societies in operation in Great Britain to the latest available date?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I understand that this question has been transferred to the Home Office.

Mr. BROWN: This question was first put down to the Minister of Health. I then received a note that it should go to the Treasury, and now I am referred to the Home Office. Does it not show a lack of liaison between Government Departments?

Mr. SPEAKER: Possibly the Home Secretary will be here later.

Mr. BROWN: (Later): May I now have an answer to my question.

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regrets that he is not here at the moment. The Registrar of Friendly Societies has informed him that the number of societies under the Building Societies Acts is:


England and Wales
…
966


Scotland
…
82


Total
…
1,048

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL TRADE (DUFFIELD PROCESS).

Mr. MORRIS (for Major OWEN): 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refer to the Committee of Scientific and Industrial Research the Duffield process, by which it is claimed that the cost of producing iron and steel can be reduced, in view of the depression existing in the iron and steel industry, so as to determine the possibilities of such process in rehabilitating those industries?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I understand that a company has been formed to prove and develop the Duffield process; that a large scale plant is being erected by the company; and that the results of these experiments will be available to the iron and steel trade. In these circumstances I do not think that any action could usefully be taken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at this stage.

Mr. HANNON: Is not the real remedy for the iron and steel situation the introduction of safeguarding at the earliest possible moment?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday: Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Representation of People (Equal Franchise) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, if not obtained tonight.
Tuesday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday and Thursday, until Half-past Seven o'Clock: General discussion on the Budget Resolutions.
The business to be taken after Half-past Seven on Thursday will be announced later.
On any night when time permits, other Orders.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the Prime Minister indicate how soon the Opposition may begin a Debate in this House on the mishandling by the Government of the rubber question? In the event of Thursday not being allotted for that purpose, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the progress made with the Equal Franchise Bill, to consider whether, in the event of the Committee stage being completed early on Monday, the remainder of Monday can be allotted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am so attracted by the title of the discussion that I should like it on as early a date as possible, and I will give every consideration to try to arrange it as soon as possible, if my right hon. Friend will communicate with me through the usual channels.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the House have the Report of the Committee on which the decision was taken before that Debate takes place?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Mr. BROWN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very important, if the Debate is to serve any real purpose, that the Members of the House should have that Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: That Report is a private Report.

Mr. BROWN: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action is a public action, which has had a very serious effect upon many thousands of people in this country and abroad, and has cost many millions of pounds, and ought not the House to have this Report?

Mr. SPEAKER: That view can be advanced on the appropriate occasion.

Ordered,
That other Government business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Captain Holt and Sir Clive Morrison-Bell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Sandeman and Major Yerburgh.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill): Captain Brass, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir Thomas Davies, Dr. Vernon Davies, Sir Leolin Forestier-Walker, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Captain Gunston, Mr. Harney, Mr. John, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Meller, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Oakley, Dr. Shiels, Colonel Sinclair, Mr. Luke Thompson, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Womersley, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

REGENT'S CANAL AND DOCK COM- PANY (GRAND JUNCTION CANAL PURCHASE) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).

Sir John Ganzoni reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Gloucester, in the County of the City of Gloucester, to provide and work trolley vehicles and omnibuses; to increase certain market and fair tolls and charges; and for other purposes." [Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords].

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of St. Olave s Garden, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey; and for other purposes." [Bermondsey Borough Council (St. Olave's Garden) Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Blackpool relative to the acquisition of lands; the construction of street improvements; the provision of an aerodrome and other matters; and to make further provision with respect to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords.]

Gloucester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Bermondsey Borough Council (St. Olave's Garden) Bill [Lords],

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to lay the foundation for a better system of marketing home produce by developing and perfecting arrangements for the grading and marking of produce. The Bill is the result of inquiry and experiments, upon which the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has been engaged since Mr. Bonar Law set up the Linlithgow Committee in 1922. Since that time the subject has become much more urgent, owing to the increase of foreign competition. Anyone who takes the trouble to look at the produce now offered for sale in our markets must be convinced that very much home produce of excellent quality is spoiled by its unattractive presentation. Foreign supplies benefit by their reliability and uniformity, and are often far ahead of home products in appearance. It is, of course, easier for foreign supplies to be well graded. Foreign countries can limit their exports to the best qualities, keeping the lower qualities for consumption in their home markets, whereas our markets have to absorb all qualities alike. The remedy for this state of affairs is to grade home produce so that the poorer qualities do not depress the value received for the better qualities. The Ministry of Agriculture have carried out practical experiments and demonstrations on 'a commercial scale at agricultural shows during the last two years. These demonstrations have taken place with eggs, poultry, fruit, potatoes, pigs, pork and bacon, and farmers have been very quick to take up this new idea. The Ministry could only have achieved the results which they have reached with the assistance and enlightened enterprise of the National Farmers' Union and various trade organisations. In the big centres of population markets are more and more demanding bulk supplies of uniform
quality. Foreign competition has taught the advantage which is to be found in securing the condition and reliability of supplies if they are packed in standardised non-returnable containers.
By these methods, which have been more and more adopted in the case of imported produce, traders have become accustomed to purchase imported produce upon samples or advertisements. The home producer simply cannot afford any longer to stand aside from this movement, and he must take steps to comply with these modern developments in marketing. The distributors in this country are just as patriotic as the producers, and they are just as keen to deal with home producers if the home produce is offered to them in a suitable form. The problem is how to make our own home produce as attractive to the consumer and as easy to handle by the distributor as foreign supplies. If we get the powers which we are asking for in this Bill we propose to deal at once with two branches of production. Already we have prepared schemes which have been developed by the Poultry Advisory Committee of the Ministry for the grading of eggs. Producers and distributors are represented upon that Committee and the schemes have been approved by the various interests concerned. We have also worked out grades for fruit and a scheme for applying these grades has been agreed upon with the National Farmers' Union.
The first Clause of the Bill enables the Ministry to define by Regulation grades for home produce. This Clause will be entirely voluntary in its operation, and nobody will need to use these grades, but if they do use them they will constitute a warranty under which the purchaser would have a civil remedy to recover damages, and to sue for breach of contract. It is essential that in this matter the Ministry should be allowed to proceed by Regulations, because it will be desirable to deal with these various commodities as the industries concerned become ready for these developments without the necessity for recurring legislation. It will be necessary from time to time, as a result of experience, to alter the grading Regulations, but Parliament will retain control. After 40 days' notice in the "Gazette" the Regulations will be laid before Parliament. Under the normal procedure the Regulations
will only take effect if no Address is presented in either House against those Regulations.
The second Clause will enable the Ministry to prescribe grade designation marks and the persons authorised to use such marks. It is proposed that the same mark shall be used on all standard products and it will be authorised only in the case of goods of defined standards and qualities. We hope that these marks will become a popular guarantee to buyers and that goodwill will be established based upon national sentiment and experience of the high quality which these marks will give. To build up this reputation and maintain the goodwill attached to the mark, it is clear that it will have to be safeguarded by being limited to those who will conform to certain conditions in order to ensure the necessary efficiency. We propose that the use of the national mark shall be controlled by a National Mark Committee which will be advised by Trade Committees representing the various commodity interests.
Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the marking of preserved eggs and cold and chemical storage of eggs as a protection for the producers and consumers of new laid eggs. Under Clause 3 it is proposed to secure the marking of eggs preserved in lime water, waterglass, oil, and similar processes. There is a proviso which insures that the operation of this Clause will be dependent upon an Order being in force for marking foreign eggs under the Merchandise Marks Act. Clause 4 deals with eggs preserved by other methods which cannot be recognised by examination, and it provides for the cold and chemical storage of eggs. We also provide for the registration of premises where such methods of storage are carried out. The operation of these provisions for marking will only take effect in the event of an Order being in force for marking imported goods. As the Clause stands it is proposed that eggs should be marked before being moved into the store, but since this Bill was published I have had representations from the cold storage trade, and I propose to move an Amendment in Committee providing that eggs need not necessarily be marked before being placed in those stores, but they must be marked before they are moved out of the stores.
The remaining Clauses deal with minor matters. Clause 5 deals with the enforcement of the provisions of the Act and expenses. Perhaps I may mention that the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations agree with the principle of the Bill. Clause 6 deals with the laying of Regulations and Orders before Parliament. Clause 7 is a definition Clause, and Clause 8 deals with the application of the Act for Scotland. With these declarations of quality I hope this Bill will find support in all quarters of the House. At the World Economic Conference, which met at Geneva, it was stated that the improvement of agriculture must, in the first place, be the work of agriculturists themselves. Among the methods suggested at that Conference was the standardisation of agricultural produce in the interests of producers and consumers. In our own country all three parties, in their political programmes, have recently stressed the importance of grading and standardisation. I do not suggest that what is proposed in this Bill will alone restore the agricultural industry to prosperity, but. I do say that these reforms must be of great assistance. This Bill is not brought forward as an emergency cure just to deal with our present agricultural difficulties, because, whether the industry is depressed or whether it is prosperous, the developments which this Bill would make it possible to carry out are absolutely necessary if the producer is to secure a fair return.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
whilst this House is in favour of a proper system of grading and marking agricultural produce and is prepared to consider proposals to this end, it objects to the Second Reading of a Bill containing provisions relating to the marking of imported eggs contrary to the findings of the Standing Committee of Inquiry appointed under the Merchandise Marks Act.
In the first place, I should like to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) has desired me to express to the Minister his regret at his unavoidable absence to-day.
The House will see that the Members for whom I speak this afternoon in mov-
ing this reasoned Amendment are very heartily in agreement with any constructive and progressive proposals which may be made by the Government for furthering schemes of grading and marketing agricultural produce. Indeed, many of us on this side of the House welcome the fact that, in recent years at any rate, the farming industry, and, later still, the Conservative party, have awakened to the facts in the agricultural industry that we have been pointing out for many years past. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) expresses a little amusement at that, but I think I can demonstrate the truth of it. For at any rate 25 or 30 years, the movement with which I am connected, and which is known to Members of this House as one of the largest buyers of produce in the market, have found it extremely difficult to give vent to their known preference for British products, because it was impossible to buy level grades in sufficiently large quantities and with sufficient. guarantees of continuity of supply to be able to provide and to fill the distributive centres necessary for their very large trade; and the experience of our own movement has also, I am convinced, been the experience of all other large buyers who have been engaged in supplying consumers in this country.
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, I think we are entitled to express some little doubt, in regard to Clauses 1 and 2, as to whether these proposals of the Government are really adequate in a Bill introduced, presumably, to deal with the whole question of grading agricultural produce. The experience that we have had of grading in other countries is, of course, valuable, but, so far as the grading schemes which have been adopted by Governments in the Dominions are concerned, I think that almost without exception the machinery for working the grading operations has been Government machinery. I gather, from the very brief statement of the Minister on the working of these Clauses, that, as a fact, the operation of Clauses 1 and 2 is not only to be purely voluntary, but is to he left to private associations, provided that certain Regulations laid down by the Minister are conformed to. I cannot think that that is going to be at all a final basis for machinery for the grading
of agricultural produce, if the results of the grading of British agricultural produce are to be anything like what we desire, that is to say, if such produce is to he put on a reasonable basis of competition with the produce coming from abroad.
The Minister referred again and again, during his explanatory speech, to what he called foreign competition, but he must know that a very considerable part of the competition in the market for commodities produced by the British farmer is not from foreign countries, but from the Empire, and that it is in the Empire as much as in foreign countries that the great progress in standardisation and grading has been made. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that point of view, that it is not only to meet. foreign competition, but to put the home product into a reasonable position to compete with our own friends overseas, that some grading development is necessary. During my visit to Canada and Australia two years ago I went through a number of places where the operation of grading agricultural produce was carried out, and I found no single case where the grading, or any process which had to be followed before grading could be applied, was not done by a Government official. I am aware, of course, that in almost every case the bulk of the produce handled was for export, and, that, therefore, it was probably easier to arrange that at not too high a cost at the ports hut I should have less confidence in a system of grading British produce which is going to be left entirely to voluntary associations, operating only under general Government regulations. I feel that the Government ought to give much longer and more careful consideration to this matter and that. If the House does assent to the general principle of Clauses 1 and 2. it ought to regard them only as a brief instalment of a much wider and more comprehensive plan for setting up national centres for the grading agricultural produce.
4.0 p.m.
In regard to the other Clauses, I am afraid I shall have to he much more critical of the procedure of the Government in bringing forward this Bill. The Minister said that. Clauses 3 and 4 are to implement the operation of the new grading scheme which has been accepted by the poultry industry, and practically indicated that they are necessary. I
want to protest with all the strength at my command against the procedure of the Government in regard to this question of eggs. I believe that the Government have adopted—I do not want to use too strong a word—an entirely wrong procedure, and one which was calculated to mislead the House and the country. I want to remind the House of the facts with regard to the position of the egg industry under the Merchandise Marks Act. In 1926 the Merchandise Marks Act was passed, and, under that Act, the House authorised the setting up of machinery whereby, if an application were made by any industry for a marking Order, a committee of a judicial character was to be appointed to examine evidence on behalf of the applicants for the Order, to hear the evidence of those who were opposed to the Order, and to come to a judicial decision. I do not know of any case, either under the agricultural section of the working of that Act or under the Board of Trade section, in which the recommendations and the general findings of such a committee have been disregarded by the Government, but in this case it seems to me that the Government have moved deliberately to try to get behind the findings of the Committee which was set up to deal with an application for the marking of eggs and which conducted its inquiry only six months ago. I want, if I may to refresh the memory of hon. Members with sonic of the details of the Report of that Committee. The Committee, which was presided over by Mr. Mitchell Innes, and reported on the 14th October, 1927, made, I believe, a very careful examination of the facts, and I believe that their Report was a very fair one, but I want to draw special attention to one or two of their statements. At the end of paragraph 8, after dealing with figures of home production and imported eggs, they say:
We do not doubt that egg, producers, like many others, suffer severely in times of trade depression, but we cannot think, in face of these figures, that the home industry is being throttled by the unfair competition of foreign eggs.
That is point No. 1 to which I want to draw attention. They go on to say, in paragraph 9:
Nor do we agree that an improvement in British marketing methods must he preceded by the marking of imported eggs.
They point out, in another part of the Report, that their principal fear was that, if they made a recommendation for the compulsory marking of imported eggs, such an order would, in fact, injure the general home egg trade, because of the very large proportion of the import trade in eggs which might be described as of best quality. In another passage, which I regard as being of importance in considering the procedure of the Government in regard to this Bill, they point out that there was a considerable portion of the import trade of an entirely different class, the cheap egg, which was necessary for the poorer class consumer, and which, they said, if it had to be handled and marked, would mean an increase in the price of the cheap egg, and would actually raise the cost of living to the working classes of this country, while, by increasing the supply of those cheap eggs in other countries as a result of that order, it would actually reduce the cost of living in other countries competing with ourselves. As a result of those general statements, the Committee made this recommendation. They said:
The conclusion we have reached is that, while the marking of individual imported eggs would be an effective means of preventing misrepresentation, an Order in Council in respect of eggs in shell should only be made when

(a) sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading, packing and marketing of British eggs to remove or, at least, mitigate the danger of the best imported egg obtaining a better market in the United Kingdom than the average home-produced egg; and
(b) either the 'cheap' imported egg becomes of substantially less importance to the British consumer or international arrangements are made which will prevent a marking arrangement from restricting supplies of this class of egg.
We make this our principal recommendation.
I want the House especially to observe that they connected those two recommendations (a) aid (b), not with the word "or" but with the word "and," thus forming one recommendation. One would have imagined, after receiving a report like that, as the result of the examination of evidence produced by traders at great expense, in some cases with legal assistance and expenses, that the trade concerned would be free from further upheavals and upsets for at least a reasonable period. In spite of that,
the Minister of Agriculture, together, I suppose, with the National. Farmers' Union and other sections of the poultry industry, have deliberately set out from the beginning to try to upset the recommendation of that judicial committee appointed under the Act passed by this House.
There is another point. Not only now have the Government, in face of that Report of a judicial committee under the 1926 Act, introduced a Bill with these two Clauses in it setting up machinery for marking imported eggs, but they have, at the same time, either ordered a second inquiry or accepted an application for a second inquiry—I am not quite clear which—to be carried on at the very moment that the House of Commons is discussing the right or wrong of having these Clauses in an Act of Parliament. The trade rightly assumes or, at least, I think they rightly assume, that the Minister in introducing this Bill is practically pre-judging the issue, and making it as certain as possible that, in spite of the Report of six months ago, the judicial committee shall now make a recommendation for a marking order. I want to be perfectly plain with the Minister, and I am obliged to him for a letter he wrote to me to-day upon an issue which was raised at the Committee on Tuesday. He has given me some information which I did not have, but it makes it all the more necessary that I should state what occurred, so that if there is a denial to be made, it shall he given all the publicity it is possible to give, that there may he no misunderstanding in the mind of the public. In a paper called "Poultry"—which, as a, fact, is the paper with the largest circulation in the poultry world—dated 16th March, this statement appeared:
At a meeting of the Lancashire Executive of the National Farmers' Union held recently, Mr. J. Rimmer (Roby, Liverpool), stated that new circumstances had arisen since the adverse report in reference to the proposed compulsory marking of foreign eggs. The headquarters of the National Farmers' Union had now been given to understand that if the application were made again to the Committee of Inquiry, compulsory marking would be granted.
That was mentioned in Committee on Tuesday, and the Chairman of the Committee very much resented it being mentioned. He said he was surprised that the charge should be made, and,
apparently, at once, after the resumption at midday, an apology was offered for using what was, after all, a statement in a well-circulated journal, and a statement never denied up to that moment either by the Ministry or by the National Farmers' Union. Since then I have received a letter from the Minister informing me about the circumstance of the apology, and I feel I ought to state the circumstances. I have been careful to examine the April number of the "National Farmers' Union Record" to see whether they had contradicted what is now said to be a wrong statement by one of their representatives at the meeting of the executive of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member referred to the fact that the Ministry did not contradict this statement. There is no mention of the Ministry in the statement, so why should we contradict it? Really, we cannot be expected, when people make unauthorised statements not mentioning the Ministry at all, to rush into print and contradict them.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has made that point because I want to show that, in spite of his letter to-day, the alleged statement made in Lancashire was justified by the previous utterances of the Minister. Now I come to a report much earlier, namely, on the 27th January in the "Manchester Guardian," of the meeting of the Council of Agriculture for England, and I find in the report of the speech of the Minister, dealing generally with this scheme for marking eggs, that he said:
I have no doubt that if we can get this grading scheme adopted, we shall, without delay, be able to get the recommendation for which the industry is asking—the marking, of imported eggs.
So that this practically official statement from the Minister to the English Council of Agriculture is, apparently, good enough authority for the representative of the National Farmers' Union to make a statement before the Executive of their Lancashire branch. In fact, it is perfectly plain to me that there has been some collusion to get behind what was the unbiased judicial finding of a committee appointed under the Act passed in 1926. Moreover, I think I am justified in saying that, when I remember my
experience at the Committee this week. I appeared as a witness before the Committee dealing with the second inquiry. It was perfectly obvious, when I read the report of the first proceedings at the meeting on Monday last, that the learned Chairman rightly found he had quite a narrow issue upon which to hear evidence and adjudicate—this Committee having given their judgment upon the general evidence in the case at the previous inquiry—and that in this case his Committee could do no more than hear expert evidence as to what, in their view, the effect would be upon the trade of the passing of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill.

Major PRICE: When the lion Gentleman refers to trade, to what trade does he refer?

Mr. ALEXANDER: When I refer to trade in this connection, I am referring to the whole trade—the producing and the distributing trade, I make no qualification at all. The duty of the Committee, within the narrow scope of the second inquiry, is, according to the learned Chairman, to decide what the effect may be of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill upon the general egg trade both on the producing and distributing sides. In those circumstances, and knowing that the Bill was down for discussion in this House to-day, I put a question to the learned Chairman, to which he made answer, and I gathered from that answer that in no circumstances was a report to be presented from the second inquiry until after the passage of this Bill through Parliament. I, probably, at that time must have indicated my surprise, and that I was obviously interested in what the effect of that would he upon the general position. Apparently, its importance also appeared to the mind of the Chairman and to the Members of the Committee, for later on I received a communication from the Secretary of the Committee to the effect that, in further consultation with his colleagues, the Chairman had made another statement after I had left the Committee, and the position now will be that the committee will report as early as possible in the interests (said the Chairman) of both sides, but I gather that if the report is to be against the marking of imported eggs, then it is to be delayed
until after the passage of the Bill, but if the report is to be favourable to the marking of imported eggs, then it can be made known at once. I thought I had the actual note in front of me, but I have it in the House, and will let the Minister see it, if he requires to do so. The next thing was a curious remark from the learned counsel for the applicants who said that that would be very helpful to the applicants.
I think the recital which I have given of the facts regarding the procedure of the Government in this matter will prove to the House that we are not stating the case too strongly when we say that, whether there is or is riot a case for the marking of imported eggs, their action in this matter has been reprehensible. It is unfair to the trade on the distributive side, which was put to all the expense six months ago. It is unfair to this House to give it all the trouble of passing an Act of Parliament in 1926, then to set up proper machinery, to have a judicial inquiry held, a considered report. received, arid then to try to get behind the findings of a body like that by introducing a Bill which is almost an instruction to the Committee to give the Order required. From that point of view alone, we should be entitled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, although we do so upon the more general and reasoned statement contained in our Amendment.
I want to point out that if the general findings of the Committee of Inquiry were sound, it is obvious that before you can logically come to the granting of a compulsory Order for stamping eggs, there must be a reasonable time for experience of the working of the new marking and grading scheme. I believe myself that the poultry expert of to-day who is producing a stamped and graded and good egg is already getting a preferential market in this country, but, speaking from our experience in dealing with large quantities, I am persuaded that if you have a compulsory marking Order for imported eggs before you have an adequate scheme, not only in operation, but having proved itself capable of pro-clueing the necessary quantities of eggs of the right type and grade, you are going to give an actual fillip to the further production and importation of
the best type of imported eggs that we are already receiving in such large quantities.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: That will suit you.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) is quite wrong. It will not suit us at all. It matters not to us whether or not eggs are imported if they give the right quality to our consumers at a reasonable price, and the fact is, with regard to this very large proportion of our imported eggs which the Committee described as the best eggs, that large quantities of them to-day are so well graded and of such good quality, and many of them marked, that we pay higher prices for them on the open market, before we begin to distribute them to our consumers, than we can afford to pay for the ill-graded and ill-assorted British product. It is not a question at all of it suiting us better to see the foreigner producing for this country a larger quantity of the better type of egg. That is foreign to our desire. We want to see the British producer producing larger quantities of the best type of egg, and then, if there is any danger of his being injured by unfair competition, we say that you should consider, in the light of those circumstances, the, granting of a compulsory Order, and, as a matter of fact, that is the considered finding of the judicial Committee after hearing both sides.
I want to say that there has been, right the way through—and I give the Government credit for it—a marked difference between the character of the committees set up under the Merchandise Marks Act and that of those set up under the Safeguarding Act. Whether the committees have been operating at the Board of Trade end or at the Ministry of Agriculture end, they have been of a much more judicial character than some of the other committees dealing with trade matters that have been set up by the Government; and we say that,, when you have a committee of the kind which has considered this matter so carefully, and made such a careful and detailed Report, it is undesirable for the Minister to adopt such a procedure as he has adopted in this case.
If the Bill is proceeded with in Committee, there will have to be some Amendments in any case with regard to Clauses 3 and 4. I would like to ask the Minister whether all the recommendations at the end of the Report of the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act have been carried out. In paragraph 20, on page 8, they say:
(d) Will not be affected by cold storage or any of the means of preservation now in use for eggs;
(e) Will not injuriously affect preserving agents at present used for eggs.
I think the House ought to know whether those two points have actually been inquired into and settled before we come to deal with the Committee stage of the Bill. With regard to Clause 3, the date of operation of the Bill is to be the 1st January next, but that may operate very unjustly indeed in the case of the holders of large stocks of preserved eggs in store for the 1928–9 season. It is impossible to guarantee that the holders of those stocks of preserved eggs will be able to clear them by 31st December, and it will mean that all the preserved eggs in store for the 1928–9 season will have to be handled and stamped as having been in store, whereas, if you postpone the date for even two months, you will be able to clear out the whole stock of eggs put down for 1928–9, and you will make the commencement of the operation of the Act, the following season. I think that is a reasonable request to make on behalf of those who are dealing with preserved eggs in large quantities, and I hope the Minister will say that he is prepared to consider an Amendment to that effect when the Bill goes to Committee.
I want to make the position of our party on this matter quite clear. First of all, we will welcome any sound scheme which will promote and enhance the value of the grading and standardisation of agricultural products. We are not satisfied that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are sufficiently comprehensive or binding for that purpose, and we ask the Government in regard to those Clauses in any case, that they should be regarded only as an instalment. With regard to the marking of eggs, we upon these benches want to hold no brief for the middleman who is guilty of malpractice, and we do not stand up to defend him, but we believe that the Minister was right when he said just now that the distributor is
as patriotic as the producer; and in the main I think we might say that the final judgment will be with the consumer of the eggs, but we ask that the consumer shall not be damnified by an order which will seriously enhance—

Sir H. CAUTLEY: How can the consumer judge until he has eaten the egg?

Mr. ALEXANDER: He may not be able to judge upon the first egg, but it is quite certain that if he does not get satisfactory service, he will soon change his trade.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: How is he to know if the egg is not marked?

Mr. ALEXANDER: He will know whether he has got a good egg for the price he has paid.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Not until afterwards.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is another matter. We are, therefore, prepared to support a scheme of grading, and I think a large number of my hon. Friends at any rate would support a reconsideration of marking, if you had proved by the working of a grading scheme that you were able to meet the position of the best class of foreign eggs. If the producing trade can come to this House with experience of the working of a grading and marking scheme of that kind, I think they will find a very different atmosphere in which to discuss the question of compulsory marking, but we consider that there is no warrant in the present circumstances for adopting this procedure and going behind the considered findings of the judicial Committee.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I wish to associate myself entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) with regard to the attitude of the Labour party to any policy of trying to improve the orderly marketing and quality of any kind of produce. There is no section in this House which is more genuinely attached to every means whereby we may facilitate produce reaching the consumer in the very best order and of the very best quality, so that, as far as that part of the Bill is concerned, we look upon it in a general sense with the very greatest good will, though it cer-
tainly wants examination in Committee. We have a right to know—and I was astonished that the Minister in his opening statement made no reference to the point—why there has been included in this grading Bill a proposal for the marking of eggs in face of the judicial Committee having reported directly against that proposal. We have had no answer to that question, and there has been no explanation, and it has struck me as being most extraordinary that we should have a responsible Minister introducing a Bill which professes to deal with the question of grading and marking, and inserting in it a proposal to mark a commodity, which a Committee appointed by the Government reported should not be done.
One of the important aspects of this question lies in the character of the article referred to in Clauses 3 and 4. According to the Report of the Committee, the home production of eggs is rather less than one-half of the total consumption, and I notice, on referring to last year's import figures, that we imported something over £11,000,000 worth of eggs, which is more than half the entire consumption of eggs in this country. Surely that is a very important aspect of the question. In a sense, it falls into the category of an article of food in universal use among the great masses of the community, and it is of the highest importance that the daily supplies of this essential article of general consumption should not be arbitrarily interfered with. A Committee appointed to initiate and operate a policy which the Government themselves were responsible for introducing recommended that it would be dangerous to insist upon the marking of eggs until adequate arrangements had been made for supplies to this country of the proper quality. On the question whether supplies will be endangered at the present juncture if marking is resorted to, let me quote the evidence laid before the new Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act which met last Tuesday. Mr. S. Lineham, of the National Federation of Produce Merchants, said that the Egyptian egg was very popular in the north of England, but Egypt for her own purposes had limited the available export. That had a serious effect on the trade. He added:
I feel satisfied that in the event of a marking order the Egyptian egg will not
come to this country at all, and it is a very useful thing. It is small, but very good. It comes at a time of great scarcity, and it would be a great pity and disadvantage to poor people in Yorkshire and Lancashire if they were denied ads egg.
The view of this expert is that the application of marking now will probably rob us of the supply of that particular egg. Obviously if you are going to have regulations making it necessary for eggs to be marked, many eggs will be sent to markets where marking is not required. The Minister and the Government are not pursuing a national policy by endangering in this way the importation of eggs before they have developed a properly ordered marking scheme.

Mr. LAMB: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) demanded my immediate attention when, in almost his first words, he said that his organisation—I presume he was referring to the Cooperative organisation—was glad that the farmer had now become aware of something which his organisation had known for many years. I was hoping that he was going to tell us something about his experience in production and not in distribution, for that information might have been useful to some of us. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and the hon. Member immediately turned to the question of distribution, which admittedly has been made a tremendous success by his organisation. The thing that the hon. Member was so pleased about was that we had come to realise the value of grading. We have realised the value of grading for a considerable time, and later I shall tell the House of voluntary associations which are now carrying out the grading of agricultural produce with great success.
The hon. Member's next objection to the Bill was that the Ministry of Agriculture was allowing trading associations to do this grading. I understood the hon. Member to state that his trade association had been doing it with very great success and reaping very great advantages from it. Then the hon. Member referred to the fact that in his trip to Canada and Australia he had taken a great deal of interest in the grading done by other countries. He roust realise that the question of the distribution of large quantities produced for export is a very different thing from distribution of products which are produced in
smaller quantities for an entirely home market. We know that in a foreign country or a Dominion the produce that is collected goes through a bottle-neck before distribution and export. It is necessary to get the products to centres at which it is easy to grade it. The work is done under very different conditions from those that are possible in this country. Here we have very much smaller quantities produced, adjacent to the home market, and it would be very undesirable to make it compulsory that products should be collected and taken to centres before distribution, because that would not only delay the receipt of the article by the consumer but would add to the expense.
The hon. Member also said that those who were marking the eggs sent into this country from other countries were receiving very great advantage now. Then why does the hon. Member fear the extension of that advantage in future? I am not surprised at the opposition which the hon. Member is showing to the Bill, because I happen to know that he has been a leader in the opposition to the Merchandise Marks Act and the imported products that it effects. I cannot understand how he, as a representative of a large distributing agency, can object to his customers knowing from where the products that he sells are coming. Speaking for the organised industry, I support and welcome this Bill. The object of the Bill, as we know, is to provide for better marking, and producers in this country are in favour of that proposal. It will enable them not only to produce to the best advantage but will ensure the public receiving goods to the best advantage. There have hitherto been in this country difficulties which do not exist in other countries to the same extent. Several different products have already the advantage of grading and marking. The Cheshire Cheese Association members have been for some time grading their products, and there have been great advantages in that method. That is carrying Out the principle which underlies this Bill. Why should we not allow the success which has been achieved in regard to that particular article to be extended as is proposed in this Bill? There are other makers of cheese who are following the same lines as the
Cheshire producers. There are poultry societies that have adopted the same plan. This Bill will undoubtedly give them great encouragement and a great advantage. For these reasons the Bill ought to receive our entire support.
The Bill has been considered not only by the Advisory Council of the Minister, composed of representatives of the producers, of the distributors, wholesale and retail, and of the importers of eggs. It is a very comprehensive Committee, and it has approved of the Bill. The Bill is approved also by the National Poultry Council of England and Wales and by the Poultry Committee of the National Farmers' Union. I am authorised on behalf of the organised producers, so far as the Farmers' Union and Poultry Committee are concerned, to say that they approve of the Bill and wish it success. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has brought in the Bill in the interests of agriculture. I hope no one will say that the Bill is going to revolutionise agriculture. We do not say that at all; but agriculture is in such a state that we appreciate very much any small measures that are brought in, when they are calculated, even in a small way, to improve the disastrous condition of agriculture, and have also the advantage that the consumer has a guarantee of the quality of the article he is consuming.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not speak either for the Farmers' Union or for the distributive trade. I am speaking for the consumer, and I want to know what right the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) or anyone else has, to prevent my knowing where my breakfast egg was laid. The Seconder of the Amendment spoke of the consumers in the North of England. I suggest that if they knew that their eggs came from Egypt there would be no sale for them. I do not see why the retail trade, whether a co-operative society or anyone else, should be entitled to interfere with the consumer having a knowledge whence his eggs come. There is far too much deceit in the custom of the retail trade in every branch. In the fish trade we have the dyed kipper. People buy a dyed kipper and when they eat it they say "That is not nice, and we will not have kippers again." Then there is the
frozen beef trade. It is the most difficult thing to buy anywhere good English or Scottish meat, because the butcher will push the frozen stuff at you every time. That meat ought to be marked too. Egg marking is far more clamant, because it is impossible to tell from the outside of an egg from where it has come. This Bill will stimulate the egg producing industry in this country. Once the poultry rearers are satisfied that they are protected and that their eggs are not going to be used as a cloak to cover the foreign import, there will be an improvement in the poultry industry. Hon. Members opposite say: "Give us the grading first, and we will give you the marking afterwards." That is rather like the old question: Did the hen or the egg come first?
There is nothing more certain than that every egg consumed in this country could be produced here. That would be of enormous advantage. I agree that those who have eggs in cold storage, perhaps for years—like some of the fish—should have a reasonable time to get them cleared out, and I am glad that the Minister is to give effect to that idea. The Bill is a great step forward. It will help the small-holder and the small producer. A measure of the kind is absolutely essential if we are to get the poultry industry in this country developed to the magnitude that it should reach. We are one of the greatest egg consuming countries in the world. A friend who is an expert tells me that he has adopted as a counter-measure the marking of his own eggs, and he sees that they are delivered in the London market in such a way that the consumer knows whence they have come. Everybody cannot do that, but I think that the public is entitled to know where the egg comes from. Nothing is more essential and nothing would promote the development of this particular industry more.
As for the evidence about this so-called judicial committee! We know all about these judicial committees. We know that the people who give evidence are the organised bodies, the trades, and all the associations, and we never get the views of the public. It was the same in regard to the inquiry in connection with shop hours. The poor public was never represented, except by my own feeble voice. Nobody ever came near to represent the public interest. It is the same
with regard to judicial committees. You cannot get the ordinary man to take the trouble to come. Those who come represent an association, and the association is the trader all the time. I have great respect for the traders of this country, but I have an infinitely greater respect for the producers. If we are to have a prosperous country either in agriculture, industry or anything of the kind, let us have consideration for the producer first and protect him, and the trader will always be able to look after himself. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), who moved this Amendment, represents the distributive trade entirely. As producers everybody knows very well that the co-operative societies have done badly. They have done nothing as producer, but they have done very good work as distributors. That is easy. It is a boy's job. It is a perfectly simple job they have done well. Bat possibly by the grading and marking, and the absolute identification of the particular commodities they sell, if this Bill comes into operation, they may not be quite so successful in future as they have been in the past.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), who approaches this subject, as I do, as an egg consumer. The only difference is that he seems to think the fact that he is an egg consumer qualifies him to disregard any report or any evidence or any judicial conclusion at which persons who have gone closely into the topic have arrived. I confess that I am, as a mere egg consumer, a little puzzled as to where the Government stand in reference to the Report of the Standing Committee. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) contains the statement that the Bill contains provisions relating to the marking of imported eggs contrary to the Finding of the Standing Committee of inquiry appointed under the Merchandise Marks Act. That is a criticism of the Bill which is either true or false. It is possible to take up the position that it is quite true that the Bill contradicts the findings of the Standing Committee and that the Government propose to throw over the Standing Committee. Committees have been wrong before now and Governments have thrown over such Committees more than once.
But the striking thing is, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, m moving the Second Reading of the Bill, although this reasoned Amendment is on the Order Paper, never, as far as I appreciated, told us plainly whether he was producing something which contradicted the recommendations of the Standing Committee or not. I think we are entitled to know not only from the point of view of the lion. and learned Member for Argyllshire, who takes these matters very light-heartedly and who says it does not matter how much you overrule any judicial body, but from the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture whether this Bill is or is not a Bill which is put forward in flat defiance of the recommendation of the Standing Committee set up by the Minister of Agriculture himself. Anybody can get the report by going into the Vote Office, and I was interested in looking through it to see whether the question could be answered by an inspection of the report. For myself, I have a great natural inclination to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken to know where my egg comes from, and I have a natural preference for one which comes from somewhere nearby, because it is more likely to be supposed to be fresh. That is perfectly natural and perfectly human, but here is this Committee consisting of a very distinguished Chairman, of Mr. G. W. Currie, and of Sir Basil Mayhew, with a Secretary who is an official at the Ministry of Agriculture. They have gone most elaborately into this question, and have reached this conclusion. They say, in effect, this: It is all very well to say now let us start and mark imported eggs and that will be a very good thing for the egg consumer, for the egg producer and for everybody else. But, they say, if the imported eggs we are talking about are the best imported eggs, those who want to assist British agriculture had better be careful, because if you support the marking of the imported egg which is the best, whether it comes from Ireland or Holland or Denmark or somewhere or other, you will find
that the 'best' imported eggs"—
I am now reading from the report—
would derive more advantage than homeproduced eggs from a marking Order under the Act.
They go on to say that that will be the result
unless a substantial improvement were first effected in home methods of grading and marketing.
I do not for a moment imagine that the British barn-door fowl is not capable of doing her duty quite as well as her counterpart in other parts of the world, but if it is the fact, and after these expert gentlemen have had a prolonged in-quiry—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that eminence is no guarantee? I always recollect that the Leader of the Opposition did not know whether a hen cackled before or after laying an egg.

Sir J. SIMON: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for interrupting me because in doing so he has fired his shot at somebody else. At any rate, it seems pretty plain that this report does in very straightforward terms assert, with whatever right there ought to be attached to it, that to mark the best imported eggs in the present state of affairs is not, as a matter of fact, going to produce those good results we hoped would come. On page 7, when they come to what they call their principle recommendation, the Committee say:
An Order in Council in respect of eggs in shell"—
which is an Order under the Merchandise Marks Act—
should only be made when sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading, packing and marketing of British eggs to remove or, at least, mitigate the danger of the best' imported eggs obtaining a better market in the United Kingdom than the average home-produced eggs,
and they go on to say:
We make this our principal recommendation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Risking the danger to the producer's business.

Sir J. SIMON: It is really not a question whether the producer is prepared to risk something. The question is whether most of the consumers are called upon to, risk something. The hon. and learned Gentleman is so light-hearted.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: What are the consumers risking?

Sir J. SIMON: I was replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just said that the producer would risk all.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Risk the danger to the producer's business.

Sir J. SIMON: I think I am making my point quite plain and I have rather disturbed the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The truth is, that the Minister has produced this Bill without telling the House of Commons in plain terms that he is producing something which contradicts this Report. We are surely entitled to know whether that is the position, and if the advice which the Minister of Agriculture has received is quite contrary to this Report, I am not complaining. I have no axe to grind in the matter. It seems to me that the ordinary citizen, or at any rate, the ordinary Member of the House of Commons, ought to know. It is no good saying to the House of Commons in a cheerful way that we all want to help the poultry farmer in England. Of course we do, but when there has been this elaborate Report of the Standing Committee set up by the Minister of Agriculture which warns us that if we adopt this very natural course, in the view, at least, of those gentlemen who made the inquiry, we may be doing a very foolish thing. In exactly the same way, the Committee goes on to deal with the other kind of imported egg—the cheap imported egg, and, I dare say, sometimes the cheap and rather nasty imported egg. The Committee is equally explicit about that. What they say is that as a matter of fact the egg trade of this country has greatly improved its position as compared with the foreign trade in recent years. The production of eggs in the United Kingdom is substantially larger than in pre-War years. But they say in connection with the cheap imported eggs—they are not all nasty and unpleasant—that if you are really going to require that every single egg is to he marked and examined to see that it is marked, what are you going to do for that section of the population which at the present, at least, relies largely on the cheap imported egg for its breakfast?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No—bacon.

Sir J. SIMON: In a part of the country which I know well, there is a very large number of people who consume
cheap eggs. They use them sometimes for cooking, and for breakfast. It is no good making generous and general appeals to the natural sentiment, which we all possess, and which I have as strongly as anyone else, to help British agriculture, without facing what appears to be the unanimous conclusion of this most elaborate inquiry. I would, therefore, like to ask from the Government tonight an answer to this question. The Amendment is an Amendment which asserts that the Government Bill flies in the face of the recommendation of this Standing Committee. Is that so? And if it does contradict the recommendation of the Standing Committee, what have the Government to say in justification for so doing? They may have a perfectly good answer. There may have been some new revelation which has been vouchsafed to them, but the House of Commons at present is quite without information on the subject. A further point I should like, if I may with great respect, to address to the Minister of Agriculture is this. He made a speech in which he went through the Clauses of the Bill and referred to Clauses 3 and 4 and said, if I understood him rightly, not only in reference to Clause 4 but in reference to Clause 3, the Clause could only come into operation after an Order under the Merchandise Marks Act had been made for marking imported eggs. I think he said so. For myself, I do not quite under stand that. There is nothing in the Clause, I think, which says so, and one left, or at least I am left, in considerable confusion as to what is intended to be the order of advance.
5.0 p.m.
As the right hon. Gentleman is kindly attending to the question I venture to put to him, may I add that in Clause 3 you say that it shall not be lawful to sell a preserved egg unless it is marked in the prescribed manner. Are you contemplating by the prescribed manner marking the fact that it is a preserved egg, or are you contemplating marking it by reference to the place from where it comes? The phrase "prescribed manner" is a very familiar phrase in Acts of Parliament, but what it really means is that you leave the thing to the Government Committee, and I think we are entitled to know what are the intentions. With regard to the first two Clauses, I should have thought that everybody
would sympathise with them as far as they go. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) spoke with, of course, great authority of the welcome which they would receive from the community which he specially represents. I really do not think that provisions which simply say that you may by Regulation set up a series of labels, and that then, if anybody uses a label falsely, he is liable for a breach of warranty would carry anybody very far. As a matter of fact, it is already, without any Act of Parliament, the law. Once a particular designation or description has got a trade meaning, any one who applies that designation or description to an article falsely is guilty, I should have supposed, of a breach of warranty. I imagine that all that the Minister of Agriculture is doing in Clauses 1 and 2 is to define by Regulation a number of descriptive terms, and then anyone who uses those descriptive terms will be liable for a breach of warranty if the description is inaccurate. The main point I rose to make was that I do not think it is treating the House of Commons quite fairly to conduct this Debate as though the Bill was not, for good or for evil, apparently contradicting the recommendation of the Committee, and, while I have not the slightest desire to defend the recommendation of the Committee—frankly, I know nothing about the merits of the subject—it seems to me that anyone who can get the Report from the Vote Office and see that it is in contradiction to the Bill, is entitled to a perfectly candid and full statement as to why it is that the Minister of Agriculture has taken the course of contradicting the Committee's recommendation.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It appears abundantly plain on the face of the Bill that, far from being a contradiction of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, from which he has been quoting so freely, it is an attempt to carry out its main recommendation, which is an intimation to the egg industry at home to put its house in order before it asks for the marking of imported eggs. This Bill does not ask for the marking of imported eggs. It is setting up provisions for putting the industry's
house in order—grading, marketing and so on. The only marking that is provided for is the marking of preserved eggs as against fresh ones.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is that why the Minister either ordered or accepted an application for a new inquiry?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I am simply saying what is the way I understand the Bill. It appears abundantly clear to me, in reading it, that both the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who has just spoken, and the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have failed to appreciate the intention of the Bill. They have assumed that the marking Clauses apply to imported eggs. They do not. They apply to chemically preserved eggs. The second part of Clause 4, which alone has reference to imported eggs, will only come into force if and when an Order is made under the Merchandise Marks Act. Far from acting contrary to the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the Bill is a very prompt response to its recommendations. That is the interpretation I put upon it, and I am surprised that the Amendment was held to be in order. It refers to provisions which I cannot find in the Bill. They are not there. My main motive in rising was to say that I believe the whole agricultural community are very desirous to have the assistance which this B11 offers to regulating the industry—grading and marketing, and so on, and generally to putting the industry in order—and I hope no misinterpretation of the terms of the Bill will be allowed to stand in the way of its rapid passage to the Statute Book.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely the hon. Baronet does not seriously suppose that he has adequately replied to the case that has been put. We are all aware that the Bill deals with the preservation of eggs by chemical process, but it goes further. In Clause 4 (2) reference is made to Orders-in-Council which may be made under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, and that has to be read in conjunction with the fact that, prior to the introduction of the Bill to this House, the Minister has instituted a fresh inquiry under the Merchandise Marks Act within six months of a Report having been issued against the marking of imported eggs.

Mr. GUINNESS: Does the hon. Member suggest that I had any choice but to order that fresh inquiry?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that counsel for the applicants made the statement that the second inquiry was at the instigation of the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know what he said, but if he made that statement it was not in accordance with the facts. The application was made to me under the terms of the Act from interests substantially concerned arid I had no choice.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) definitely quoted a speech the Minister is reported in the "Manchester Guardian" to have made, in which he invited a further application, which has resulted in this second inquiry. Be that as it may, hon. Members opposite have proceeded on the assumption that we who are supporting the Amendment are hostile to grading and marking. We are not. I speak for myself alone as an unrepentant supporter of marking was at some pains to turn up what happened when the Labour Government was in office, and I find that I and others on this side and, indeed, Members of the Liberal party, supported the Second Reading of the Bill and were at some pains in the Committee to show that if a reasonable proposal could be put forward whereby more harm than good would not be done we would all support it. For example, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) went very much further than I did. He supported the Bill as it then stood on the ground that it would be an advantage not only to the smallholder who was producing eggs but to the consumer who was entitled to know what he was buying.
We are well aware that there are three interests to be concerned. There is the interest of the producer who finds the market being flooded with goods that are frequently misdescribed. We have the testimony of the Select Committee to the fact and the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee is that imported eggs are frequently passed off on the British public as home-produced eggs. The home producer suffers a very considerable disadvantage because of misdescription. We know there is another
side to be considered, and that is the interest of the consumer. If the consumer pays for a quality of goods, he is entitled to get that quality of goods and not to have an inferior quality imposed upon him. There is also the interest of the egg trader. There is surely no party in the House that is so free from the charge that it stands for the middleman than this party, and especially that section of it, that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. [Interruption.] Hon. Members surely are aware that the co-operative movement is designed for the purpose of squelching out the middleman. In soap, for example, have they not done so? Are they not doing it with boots, clothing, and so on? The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is evidently under the impression that the co-operative movement is simply a distributing agency.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They buy from the wholesaler.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not always. The co-operative movement is producing about £40,000,000 of goods per annum. It is the largest producer in the country. [Interruption.] I was dealing with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire who said that the hon. Member for Hillsborough stood purely for the traders' movement, the middleman's movement, and knew nothing whatever about production. In point of fact, my hon. Friend and the section of the Labour party that he represents, and indeed the whole Labour party stand less than any other party in the House for the middleman's interest.
I have here the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee. Out of every thousand eggs in shell used in this country in 1925 no fewer than 138 came from China. Egypt is a comparatively small exporter of eggs to Great Britain. Her quota is 22 out of every thousand. More eggs come from China than from Denmark, but Denmark is stamping her eggs. There is no trouble about the Danish egg. If the egg were to be stamped as a Chinese product, I can imagine that the demand for the Chinese product would fall very remarkably. We do not want to eat Chinese eggs. We only eat Chinese eggs because we do
not know that they are Chinese. We only eat Chinese eggs and Egyptian eggs because we are not aware of the fact. The quota per thousand of eggs imported from Denmark is 121; from the Netherlands 35; from Russia 47; from Belgium 21; from Italy 11; from Latvia and Lithuania 11; and from the Argentine 10.
Here we have a problem in which every party in the House is interested. We are interested in it not only from the point of view of the agricultural producer, but from the point of view of the consumer; but in discussing this problem we must take effective steps to see that more halm is not done. A Committee was set up by the Government to inquire into the matter. That Committee six months ago, on the 14th October, 1927, solemnly presented a Report to the Minister of Agriculture, in which they say that, as a result of the information which they have received and of the evidence which they have taken, it will be bad business to proceed with the marking of eggs until certain prior conditions have been fulfilled. That Committee solemnly reported that it would be foolish, that it would be bad for the producer of eggs in this country, and they gave reasons why, to proceed with the marking of eggs, until certain prior conditions had been fulfilled.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I have been trying to understand the course that this Debate is pursuing, and I can find nothing in this Bill about the marking of foreign eggs.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Clause 4 (2) says:
If and so long as any Order-in-Council made under Section two of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1920, is in force prohibiting the sale or the exposure for sale in the United Kingdom of imported eggs unless they bear an indication of origin, the following provisions shall have effect.
That has to be read in conjunction with the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has within the past six months, after having received one Report from a Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, set up another Committee, which is sitting, and we submit that it is vital to the whole discussion of this Bill that the full facts relating to these two Committees and what they mean should be explained.

Sir J. SIMON: May I respectfully submit, as you were not in the Chair at
the time, that the Minister in his opening speech stated, as I understood him, that Clause 3 of the Bill would only come into operation when an Order in Council under the Merchandise Marks Act had been made for the marking of imported eggs.

Mr. GUINNESS: There has been a misunderstanding. I meant Clause 4. Clause 4 is conditional on an Order being made for the marking of foreign eggs.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman certainly said Clause 3, twice. Evidently, it was a mistake.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The marking of foreign eggs has nothing to do with this Bill, but comes under the Merchandise Marks Act. It would not be in order on this Bill to discuss the marking of foreign eggs, because that point does not arise.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I draw attention to the fact that the whole course of the Debate has proceeded on the provision in Clause 4 (2). While I agree that it is obvious that that Clause is conditional upon an Order in Council being made, I submit that the Minister's opening statement and everything that has been said since make it clear that the essence of this discussion is whether or not it would be advisable immediately, before proper precautions are taken, to proceed with the marking of imported eggs.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the hon. Member not see that under Clause 3 even preserved eggs must be marked, which will include practically all foreign eggs, and also home eggs?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It will include some home eggs but practically all the imported eggs. If we are not to make any further observations with regard to the marking of imported eggs—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I wanted to make myself clear on the point as to how much it was relevant to refer to some thing which is not in the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have said practically everything that I want to say on this subject. I hope that no difficulty will be placed in the way of the Minister when he is replying, and that he will be
able to answer fully and completely the very elaborate criticisms and the very detailed and reasoned criticisms which have been levelled against the Bill at this point by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and other hon. Members.
The Committee which was set up and which reported in October last actually printed their principal recommendations in italics, so that there should be no mistake about them. They say:
The conclusion we have reached is that while the marking of individual imported eggs would be an effective means of preventing misrepresentation, an Order in Council in respect of eggs in shell should only he made when:
(a) sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading, packing and marking of British eggs, to remove or, at least, mitigate the danger of the 'best' imported egg obtaining a better market in the United Kingdom than the average home-produced egg.
There is not a scrap of evidence and nobody has stated that during the past six months there has been any improvement in the grading of eggs.

Mr. LAMB: I said so.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I understood the hon. Member to speak about cheese.

Mr. LAMB: And eggs.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member referred to eggs, I withdraw my remark. Certainly, it is not our experience that any improvement has taken place in the last six months. I have repeatedly invited the Secretary of State for Scotland to give us assistance in the proper grading and marketing of eggs in Scotland, but we are continually fobbed off with the story that this ought to be left to some private organisation whose headquarters are in Edinburgh, and so on. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland will do nothing whatever beyond making a provision of a few pounds per annum by way of donation to an agricultural organisation society, and the provision of one or two marketin4 officers for the rural districts. When we ask for the creating of an organisation for marketing on a big scale we get no assistance whatever from the Government, and we have had no evidence that any such improvement has taken place during the past six months as would warrant the Govern-
ment in bringing in a Bill after a Committee has reported that not until certain prior conditions are fulfilled should legislation be put upon the Statute Book. We see no evidence whatever that those conditions have been fulfilled, and because of that fact I support the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The House is indebted to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your Ruling, which made it quite clear that whatever this Bill may be it is not a Bill for the marking of imported foreign eggs. In so far as that principle has been settled, it was settled by a previous Measure, and the purport of this Bill is of a different kind. The Debate—perhaps it is due to the Amendment—has created the impression that this is purely a Bill which deals with the question of eggs. It is clear that eggs play a very considerable part in the structure and mechanism of the Measure, but, if I may respectfully say so, the important part of the Bill is the first part, and there is a real danger that the importance of the step taken by the Ministry of Agriculture may be overlooked, in view of the criticism which has been made to-day, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, although it is criticism which could be more effectively addressed to the Members of the Committee upstairs.
We have been pressing this question of the marketing of agricultural produce upon the Government for a very long time. I am one of the critics of the Minister of Agriculture and I should have been quite ready to intervene in order to criticise him. Therefore, when I have an opportunity of indicating my approval of any step which he takes, it would be unfair if I did not avail myself of it. I want to show him that I am as ready to intervene to congratulate him as I am to intervene when I feel it necessary to criticise him. I think this Bill is a very radical contribution towards the marketing of agricultural produce. Whatever anybody may say about the proposals of the Bill in regard to tenure or otherwise, we are all agreed that whatever you do about tenure or improvement of the land, every scheme must be a complete failure unless you have improvements in marketing. I would almost put marketing first.
We have £327,000,000 worth of goods coming from abroad of the very kind of
produce that our climate and our soil is capable of producing. I am convinced more and more from the investigations which I have made, and from the experience which I have had myself, that the difficulty is one of marketing. I find people within seven miles of where I alit producing, buying goods from France, whereas you could more easily supply them on the spot. The difficulty is that there is no certainty in regard to marketing and grading. The people say: "One day we may buy very good stuff from a local farmer, and next day we may buy something locally which is very inferior, and the result is that our customers go away. We must have something which we can rely upon." They say: "We are quite sure about supplies from abroad; they come in regularly, but we are never quite sure of our supplies from home." Marketing is the first essential in solving the agricultural problem, but before you begin marketing you must solve the problem of grading. One thing which has enabled the Danish farmer to establish his market here is that the purchaser knows perfectly well that when he buys a thing which has come from Denmark, the chances are 100 to I that it will come up to the description, and the result is that, very often, he gets a better price for his goods. It is not a question of price but of certainty that you are getting supplies of the right quality, if that were done with regard to agricultural produce here you would get better and more assured prices. Let me say at once that I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill, and I hope he will put it through. With regard to the Clause in reference to eggs, I agree that it is a matter which requires examination and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to consider any amendments.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was riot present when the Amendment was moved, and the point in regard to Clause 4 is of vital importance to the Second Reading Debate. We are dealing with a question of principle; that the Government ought not to introduce a Measure with these Clauses, which appear to be an inducement to a committee under another Act to recommend an Order in Council.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought the answer which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) evoked from the Minister of Agriculture cleared away a good deal of the difficulty. The first answer which the Minister of Agriculture gave unintentionally misrepresented his own Bill, but the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend obtained, corrected that impression. Even if the hon. Member for the Hillsborough division (Mr. Alexander) is right, it is not a Second Reading point. The question on a. Second Reading Debate is whether the point in regard to Clause 4 is of sufficient importance to deny a Second Reading to a Measure nine-tenths of which hon. Members accept. I agree that there is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Hillsborough has said; it is a matter which can be raised in Committee, but to say that you are going to stop the whole process of grading, which is vital to agricultural production in this country, merely because you disapprove of one particular point, is a course to which I should not assent. Apart altogether from the criticisms which may be made legitimately in regard to the question of eggs, I am very glad that this step forward has been taken.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Hon. Members have spoken in support of this Bill as consumers and others as retailers want to say at once that I support the Bill from the agricultural standpoint. I accept it as a Measure to help the agricultural industry in its present difficult position. What is the cause of that difficulty? It is simply this. As we all know, the prices received by the farmer by the sale of his agricultural produce does not in many cases equal the cost of production, there is no margin. I do not think this is quite realised by some hon. Members who represent urban constituencies, because they look upon the situation from the consumers' point of view. Unfortunately, the consumer does not realise the low prices which agricultural produce is making, but while there is no margin between the cost of production and the price which the farmer himself receives, there is a very large margin between the price which the agriculturist receives for his produce and that which the consumer pays. If some of this large margin could go to the producer, that is to say, if some of the money which
the consumer pays found its way into the pockets of the producer, it would be a great help to the agricultural community. In so far as this Bill will help this I give it my wholehearted support.
Unfortunately, to-day, in many cases the farmer buys retail and sells wholesale. It will be a good thing for the industry when we can reverse that process and enable the farmer to buy wholesale and sell retail. It is quite possible for a man farming some 200 acres to have a turnover of £2,000 a year and a 10 per cent. increase on that would mean £200 a year to him; the difference between a profit and a loss. I do not know whether hon. Members realise how little is going into the pockets of the producers. Let me give an illustration. If an hon. Member buys an egg, he possibly pays 4d. for it; in many hotels it would cost 6d. The farmer only gets 1d. for that egg. The producer of the egg provides the fowls, the house for them to live in, their food, puts it on the rail; and only gets id. The transport and cooking of the egg costs 4d. I submit that the producer does not get a sufficient return. When this cold weather goes we may get a little summer weather, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will be entertaining some of their constituents to tea on the terrace and that a part of that tea will consist of strawberries and cream. They will probably have to pay as much per ounce for the strawberries as the grower of them gets per pound. More of this margin should go into the pockets of the producers.
This is a voluntary Bill; it is not compulsory. All it does is to permit the Minister by regulations to make these grading provisions. No farmer, no grower, no producer, need apply for this grading, but any producer or farmer will be punished if he uses the grading mark without authority. Although there is no legal compulsion, I am confident that so successful will it be that financial considerations alone will compel the farmer and producer to apply for grading under the provisions of this Bill. This method of grading is not new to this country. It has gone beyond the experimental stage. I took the opportunity of the British Industries Fair to go and see the Cheshire cheese section. The figures given to me were to the effect that one gallon of milk will produce one pound of cheese. The price of that milk is 8½d.;
and that gallon of milk will produce a Cheshire cheese which sells at Is. 4d., but under a system of grading one pound of cheese extra is made. Grading has also been tried in reference to fruit. A grower in the Maidstone area had 500 bushels of apples which were graded by the Ministry, and as a result of that grading they made 2s. per bushel extra net than they otherwise would have made. This, on 500 bushels, produced an increased price of £50. The same man has graded 4,500 bushels this season.
This is what took place last September in the Worcester area. Apples were graded with the stamp of the Ministry and packed in standard non-returnable empties, and they realised from 15s. to 18s. per bushel while the ungraded consignments were only making 4s. to 6s. per bushel. One hon. Member has said that no action has been taken with regard to the grading of eggs. In one area in the Chichester district, farmers have been keeping their supplies up to the standard recommended by the Ministry, and packing them in non-returnable packets. As a result, they have made for eggs under the grade special 1s. 10d. per dozen, for standard eggs Is. 6d., and for mediums is. 4d.; while the ruling prices in the market of the nearest town was 1s. 1d. per dozen. It, is pretty clear that the adoption of these methods of grading and marking will put more money into the pockets of the producer and help to make the margin greater between the cost of production and the amount the producer receives. That will be all to the good of agriculture, and I therefore ask the House, as far as this part of the Bill is concerned, to give it their entire support. With regard to Clauses 3 and 4 I submit that they do no more than the Minister of Agriculture has suggested, that they make the marking of cold preserved eggs and other preserved eggs compulsory in order to protect the supplier of fresh eggs.
There is a certain section of the agricultural community which is focussing its attention upon what are termed drastic remedies,, and they are therefore blind to what we may term the lesser palliatives. I myself sincerely consider that the cumulative effect of palliatives may be to do something considerable to help the industry. This Bill is an example of a palliative. I do not suggest, and I
do not think the Minister suggests, that it will cure all the ills of agriculture. On behalf of the agricultural community I accept it and I thank the Government for the number of palliatives which they have passed during the present Session. But I warn them that the industry of agriculture is still in a difficult position and that this Measure will not be enough to cure it. We accept it with gratitude but, having got it, that will not prevent us from doing our best to get still more.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Unlike seine hon. Members who have preceded me, I look upon this as a first instalment of what I hope will ultimately develop into a comprehensive scheme of grading and standardising British agricultural pro duce. Notwithstanding some of the speeches that have been made in reference to the terms of the Amendment, it seems to me that there are reasons for the Amendment and that it is a justifiable proposal. I do not agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken, because I think it has been recognised for a long time that a vital part of the Labour party's agricultural policy is to introduce twentieth century organisation into that industry. The collection, grading and standardisation of produce represents only a, part of that policy. Therefore, the Amendment in no way detracts from the general support which Members of the Opposition would always be ready and willing to give to any scheme likely to divert some portion of the £300,000,000 per annum referred to by the last speaker from the pockets of the middle-men to those of the producers, of food in this country. It is extraordinary to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) suggesting that the introduction into this Bill of a Clause, which we regard as a back-stairs method of intimidating a supposedly impartial judicial committee, is merely a Committee point and that, because of our general support for other parts of the Bill, there is no room for opposition of any kind, much less for any Amendment such as has been submitted to the Bill.
I have no intention of covering the ground so well covered by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and by other speakers, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car-
narvon Boroughs that the Liberal party have always opposed Merchandise Marks Bills on the Floor of this House, when such a Bill has become an Act of Parliament, when the machinery has been set in motion, and when an impartial hearing has been given to all the affected parties and a decision has been reached, then the Minister introduces a Bill ostensibly to insist upon certain elements of twentieth century organisation entering into agriculture, but he imports into that. Bill what is tantamount to an instruction to this supposedly impartial judicial Committee that certain things must be done and done pretty quickly. Clause 4, Sub-section (2), can only be read to mean that at the earliest possible moment the decision given in November of last year has to be changed and that the marking of imported eggs will take place in the very near future. That is the reason why we oppose this step. It is, as I say, a back-stairs method which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted, of implying to an impartial committee that certain things should be done, which have not been done by that committee although they made a very careful examination of all the facts brought to their notice in October last.
I have heard it suggested that it might be detrimental to the home producers to insist on the marking of imported eggs until order had been extracted out of the chaos which exists in the agricultural industry in this country, particularly with regard to eggs. Hon. Member after hon. Member has said that the producers are willing to risk any danger to their own industry, but this House cannot and dare not take the statements of individual Members on a question affecting the whole nation. Rather are we obliged to pay attention to the Report of the Committee, and to attach some importance to their statement as a judicial Committee. What do they say with regard to the risk to the home producer? Paragraph 10, on page 5, of the Report reads as follows:
On the other hand, an Order for marking on importation would certainly, in our opinion, stimulate the efforts of exporting countries to make their own produce supreme in the British market, and might well result in a blow to the whole industry from which it would take a long time to recover.
That is not a statement made by a casual Socialist or an indifferent Liberal or a very ardent Conservative. It is the statement of a judicial committee who have examined all the facts. They proceed:
In dealing with this point the applicants have more than once stated that they are prepared to accept any such risk to their own business. The responsibility for our recommendations must, however, remain with us, and we are of opinion that the 'best' imported eggs would derive more advantage than the home-produced eggs from a marking Order under this Act unless a substantial improvement were first effected in home methods of grading and marketing.
We suggest that the Minister's action in importing this Clause into the Bill gives the idea to the Committee and to the farmers and egg producers that a change from the previous decision is about to take place, and that the possibilities propounded by the Committee may materialise in a short time. If the accumulated evidence indicates that imported eggs ought to be marked, by all means let us have them marked. If the evidence indicates, as was the ease no later than October or November last, that the danger is not with the importers of eggs but with the home producers, then the Minister should be the last person to try to bring about a, change, which his own Committee have indicated would be detrimental to the producers of eggs in this country. I am willing to concede that, apart from Clause 4, this Bill may be the start of a journey which may ultimately bring real value to agriculture in this country, but Clause 4 is an indecent precedent which ought not to be allowed to happen. I suggest that the Minister will find in all parts of the House willing supporters for any move which is calculated to bring to the producers a greater proportion of the ultimate price of commodities than they obtain to-day, but if this backstairs method is to he insisted upon, the Minister must expect—notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who, apparently, knew nothing about the point in question—thar some opposition will be forthcoming from these benches. After all, there is something yet, I hope, in the idea of purity in politics, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that we regard this as a very indiscreet
slip on his part. It is one that will not be repeated, I hope, in any future Bill which may be introduced with the object of enabling agriculture to help itself—which it has failed so lamentably to do in the past.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I rise to congratulate the Minister warmly and sincerely on the introduction of this Measure and particularly on the ingenious manner in which, without making grading compulsory, he has laid down a line of inducement which, I think, is so clear and so strong that grading to a comprehensive extent must obviously follow any regulations made under this Measure. On the point of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, I need not take up the time of the House. It is agreed that anything which can develop the grading of agricultural produce is one of the preliminary steps towards giving the producer a greater proportion of the proper price. It is the unquestionable result of experience in connection with modern agricultural economics that produce sold in mixed lots loses an undue proportion of its value. That is the proposition which emphasises the value of marketing. An extraordinary small proportion of low-grade stuff, mixed and sold with high-grade stuff will destroy the price which the high-grade stuff, if marketed by itself, would have commanded. Therefore, there can be no question in the mind of any body who has studied the modern methods of agricultural production and marketing, that anything that can develop and induce an increase of grading in this country is a step in the right direction. The second thing I rise to do is to express my amazement at the form of the Amendment that has been put forward by the Labour party, and to express even greater amazement at the last speech with which that Amendment has been commended. The Amendment says that
it objects to the Second Reading of a Bill containing provisions relating to the marking of imported eggs contrary to the findings of the Standing Committee of Inquiry appointed under the Merchandise Marks Act.
In the Report of that Committee nothing more tentative and temporary than the arguments upon which they turned down the marking of eggs last
autumn could hardly be conceived. Their general reason for refusing marking was that there was insufficient grading. What could be more proper than that in a Bill, the object of which is to develop grading in this country, a little foresight should be used? The words of the Committee are taken into account, and the fact is reckoned upon that, if grading is developed in this country, a situation will result which unquestionably would cause a new Committee to come to a different decision. We are told, in language which really is ludicrous, that this is impure politics. I confess that my small measure of intelligence is hardly able to understand that type of language.
What is the situation? The Legislature has passed an Act of Parliament dealing with the marking of foreign produce. It is not said that only- once is a Committee to sit upon the marking of any particular article. The whole assumption of the Labour Amendment is that, because in 1927 a Committee refused to allow the marking of foreign eggs, for the whole future no other Committee—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that that ludicrous proposal is abandoned. What is the alternative? it is that some day there will be another Committee, and it is clear from the very subject matter of this Bill that the decision of a future Committee may be different. Is it anything but ordinary providence and prescience that, in a Bill dealing with grading of eggs, provision should be included on the assumption that, some day, there will be the marking of foreign eggs—particularly when, generally speaking, the only factor that prevented the Committee approving of the marking of foreign eggs was the absence of grading? In the short space of half-a-dozen lines a more foolish Amendment to a valuable Measure could hardly have been framed. I sincerely urge those who are responsible for it, for the sake of their own reputation for logic and common sense, and in order that we may have on this vital agricultural Measure a unanimous decision of this House, not to proceed further with an Amendment which has only to be analysed to be seen to be perfectly fatuous, and based on a foundation which will not bear a moment's examination. No Amendment is a matter of prevailing importance compared with the Bill; and, speaking as one who has
the honour to represent a large and important agricultural constituency in Scotland, I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon taking an important, a definite and wide-reaching step in the direction along which British agriculture must proceed, if success is to be obtained. I trust that the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend and his Ministry can frame other Measures which will further develop the system of grading, standardisation and collective marketing, which lie at the root of all successful agriculture in the modern world, and that this will be only the first of a series of Measures which will make it plain to the country that the Unionist party are going to have nothing to do with agricultural protection, but, in every way, are going to assist the farmers to help themselves along the lines of scientific and economic marketing and agricultural development.

Mr. DUNCAN: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton), but it is never very wise in this House to pose as a modern Solomon and try and teach everybody, especially in regard to legislation of this kind. This Bill seeks in an indirect manner to affect legislation in the future by anticipation. That is the point of our objection. Everybody can agree with the hon. Member in the last part of his speech. It is an extraordinarily strange thing that in this country, where there is undoubtedly the greatest market in the world for the produce of the land, so small a quantity is produced by the people on their own doorstep. What we have been arguing on this side is that we should first clean our own doorstep. This country has been producing eggs, apples, fruit and things for hundreds of years, and it is strange that we should be receiving hundreds and thousands of tons of apples from Australia and New Zealand. It has never been contemplated that this country might export these things to other countries, and it has never apparently entered the imagination of anybody connected with agriculture. At Christmas time the country is deluged with all sorts of poultry—fowl, turkeys, geese and so on—and it is very strange that those who are interested in agriculture in this country have never yet realised that they should first put their own house in order. It is only reasonable to assume that
before we ask other people to mark their eggs, we should mark ours. It seems the only sensible thing to put your own house in order before you ask other people to put theirs in order.
The speeches of the bon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and other Members on the other side, seemed to show that they have a poor impression of the activities of the co-operative movement in this country. I am surprised to hear that kind of thing, because there are possibilities that the co-operative movement may be big enough to buy everything that is produced on the land in this country when the farmers and others responsible for the production become sufficiently well organised to see where their best market is. The virtue of that would be that they would not run any risk of not getting their money. There would be no bad debts. For Members of this House to cast aspersions on the great co-operative movement is the height of fatuity and lack of foresight as to possible developments in this direction. There can be little doubt that the co-operative movement in this country to a great extent will be the salvation of the farmer. He may not realise it yet, but there is an enormous market for which the co-operative movement buys produce, and just as they succeed in getting their eggs graded and marked, they will find a wonderful improvement in their sales to the cooperative movement. I do not dispute that parts of this Bill are on right lines. I have stated the only objection that we have on this side, and we can assume that the Minister will profit by his mistake, and avoid this kind of thing in future, so that, when he sets up Committees, he will, before he throws them overboard, give some explanation to the House why he does so.
We are entitled to have food at a reasonable price in this country, and we are always faced with the danger of increased prices in dealing with a question of this kind. It is anticipated, of course, that legislation of this type will have a tendency to retard the importation of the particular articles mentioned. What will be the effect of that upon the price of food? We are importing about £11,000,000 worth of eggs into this country per annum, and if the importation of that vast quantity of eggs is interfered with to any extent, it is bound to
have some effect upon the market and the price. It does not require much imagination to see that. Anybody who has had experience in commercial life knows that there has not to be a very great shortage of any particular article to force up the price almost to a ruinous extent. That is a point which has not been dealt with in the discussion, and it certainly seems that the Bill will incur a risk in this direction unless some step is taken beforehand to safeguard against it.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that, before we begin to enforce the marking of foreign produce, we should take steps to mark our own. If he will look at the beginning of the Bill he will see that this is one of its chief objects; the national mark will be set up under this Bill, and we hope that it will enable our producers to achieve results in their marketing which at the present time they are unable to attain. I am not surprised at the hon. Member dealing with the other and subordinate points because the Debate has drifted right away from the main objects of the Bill. The Bill does not in any way lay down regulations as to the marking of foreign eggs or any other produce. What this Bill proposes to do is to enable us to get better grading, packing and standardisation of our own produce. Whether foreign eggs are marked or not, this Bill will enable British eggs to be properly graded, and long before the eggs are graded under this Bill we shall, I hope, see the grading of this year's apple crop, with the same excellent result as to prices but with wider application than we found last year in the case of the experiments which we tried and which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Shepperson). I am a little surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) to the scheme which has been prepared for improving the grading of British eggs, because generally he speaks for the Cooperative movement, and in this case we have had a letter from the general manager of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, saying:
I am pleased to inform you the Report of the Poultry Advisory Committee on the recommendations for the improvement of the marketing of English eggs has been placed before my directors, who concur in the recommendations made.
We cannot carry out those recommendations without the legislation for which we are asking this afternoon, and therefore I think it is rather a pity that the hon. Member devoted so much attention to the comparatively small points raised in Clauses 3 and 4 and did not give us the benefit of his experience and advice, which, I hope, will be in agreement with that of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, on this bigger question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should say at once that I could concur in the general approval of the scheme for the grading of British eggs, but the manager also informs me that it would be very inadvisable to adopt Clause 4 of the Bill until there has been a reasonable time for trying out the scheme for grading.

Mr. GUINNESS: There is nothing about that in the letter which we received at the Ministry. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Seen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was, I think, a little mystified by the Amendment which was put down on the Paper. He told us that he had no axe to grind, and he wanted to know whether there was any foundation for the suggestion that this Bill was proposing something contrary to the recommendations of the Merchandise Marks Standing Committee. That is a simple question to answer. Far from upsetting the recommendations of the Merchandise Marks Committee one of the objects of this Bill is to comply with those recommendations. What did the Merchandise Marks Committee report? They clearly foreshadowed in their Report that the marking of foreign eggs will eventually be necessary, but they say that it should only come about when certain conditions are fulfilled. When those conditions are satisfied they quite clearly contemplate the recommendation of a marking order. The hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned again this afternoon the letter which was referred to at yesterday's hearing—I do not know whether it was a letter, or an article from the "Poultry World." I have explained to the hon. Member that that statement was unfounded and was repudiated at the sitting of the Committee in the afternoon, when he was, of course, not present; but he has brought it up again and challenged me on the subject, and I feel that I must
read what the National Farmers' Union wrote to me last night:
We have submitted the paragraph to Mr. Rimmer.
He is the gentleman referred to in the passage complained of.
He emphatically denies that it represents an accurate summary of his remarks on the occasion on which he spoke. Mr. Rimmer was dealing generally with the question of the grading and marketing of eggs, and emphasised the need that poultry farmers should press on with 'putting their house in order.' On that basis, he claimed, headquarters were satisfied that if the application were made again to the Standing Act, under the Merchandise Marks Act, compulsory marking of foreign eggs would probably be granted.
I think that is a most natural and proper statement for Mr. Rimmer to have made in view of the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee. The hon. Member for Hillsborough takes me to task because, when speaking recently at the Council of Agriculture, I said that we might hope for a recommendation from the Merchandise Marks Committee in favour of the marking of foreign eggs, if we were to bring about a grading and marketing scheme such as that for which they asked. That was a perfectly natural statement, and I am not alone in having interpreted their Report in that sense. The Imperial Economic Committee, in their Report on eggs, published at the beginning of this year, said:
We observe that the recommendation of the Standing Committee merely proposes the postponement of the issue of such an order until certain conditions are fulfilled, and we hope it may be possible within a relatively short period to ask the Standing Committee again to review the position.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Really, the right hon. Gentleman must take all the facts together. The actual Report of the Standing Committee says that there must be sufficient improvement in the
collecting, grading, packing and marketing of British eggs to remove or mitigate the danger of the best,
and so on. In another part they clearly indicate that that would take time, but within two months, or, rather, a little more than two months, the Minister makes a public statement in which he says:
I have no doubt that if we get a grading scheme adopted"—
not put in practice—
we shall without doubt be able to get the recommendation for which the industry is asking, the marking of British eggs.
He is speaking officially as the Minister, and telling the public that he knows what the next judicial inquiry is going to bring forward.

Mr. GUINNESS: I can only assure the hon. Member that he has attributed to me knowledge which I certainly never claimed, and never possessed. I do not know what is the difference between adopting a scheme and putting it into force, and certainly I had no indication from the Standing Committee as to what decision they would come to as a result of an application. This application has been made in the ordinary course by the National Poultry Council and by the National Farmers' Union, and I had no choice, under the Merchandise Marks Act, seeing that they are interests qualified to put forward such an application, about referring it for hearing to the Merchandise Marks Committee. Such an application seems to me to have been entirely natural in view of the words of the Committee in their main recommendation, in which they ask for a scheme for grading, packing and marketing, just such a scheme as, in response to their indication, has now been put forward.

Mr. DUNCAN: Where does it state that?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the main recommendation. It is on page 7. They said there that an Order in Council should only be made when
Sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading, packing, and marketing of British eggs.

Mr. PALING: That is rather different from what you said.

Mr. GUINNESS: I quoted the words.

Mr. PALING: You said, "When a scheme has been put into operation." This is quite different.

Mr. GUINNESS: That may be a conclusive interruption in the opinion of the hon. Member, but I think the House will agree that the application was perfectly justified. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said a good deal about Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. He seems to think they are in some way contrary to the
opinions and findings of the Committee. There is no foundation whatever for that view. If the hon. Member will look at page 8 of their Report he will see that the Committee invited us to deal with this problem of preserved eggs. They say:
During the interval which must elapse while progress is being made on the lines we have indicated, attention might be given to the problem presented by preserved and cold-stored eggs. It has been suggested to us in the course of our inquiry that the need of distinguishing between preserved and fresh eggs is not less than of differentiating imported from home-produced eggs; and that if a marking order were made there would, in the absence of such a precaution, be a danger of English preserved eggs being sold as new laid and so damaging the home egg trade. This matter is, we think, not strictly within our province, but we can well believe that the home egg trade would be prejudiced by preserved eggs, whether of home or foreign origin, being passed off as English new laid.'
In view of that passage in the report of the Standing Committee, we took up this question of preserved and cold-stored eggs. They said it was outside their province; it was evident that they could not deal with it under the provisions for marking foreign eggs. We cannot deal with it without legislation, and it is in response to the direct invitation of the Merchandise Marks Standing Committee that we have taken up this matter, and that we have brought forward these proposals, which we believe to be an effective way of dealing with that danger which they brought to our notice.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What is the date in Clause 3?

Mr. GUINNESS: As to the date referred to in Clause 3, I am sorry if I left the House in any doubt about it. The date in Clause 3 is not dependent on the operation of a foreign marking order. Clause 3 deals with eggs preserved by methods which can be detected by analysis, and they would be marked under Clause 3, whether they are of foreign origin or of home origin, because that marking could be enforced owing to the fact that the eggs could he distinguished: but as to the date when the Clause is to come into operation, I am quite prepared to consider that matter, and if the hon. Member raises it in Committee and prefers some late date, I think there will he no difficulty in accepting an Amendment in that sense. The
operation of Clause 4 is dependent upon an Order in Council being made under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. It seems to me to be entirely relevant to the recommendations of the Merchandise Marks Committee that we should go into this matter in advance so that we should be in a position to deal with it if and when they may recommend an order for marking imported foreign eggs. The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked a question as to whether a satisfactory marking medium has been found. Here, again, in response to the recommendations contained in paragraph 20 of the report, we have gone into the matter and the Government chemist assures us that he is satisfied that an ink with the necessary qualities does exist.
The Debate has largely turned on the suggestion that there has been a nefarious plot to get behind the recommendations of the Merchandise Marks Standing Committee. It is true that there has been a certain inconsistency among hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke of intimidating the Committee, and he seemed to think that my action in trying to carry out what the Committee has asked for is a menace to the purity of British public life. We have also been told that there is, apparently, a nefarious plot between my Department and the Committee to bring about the marking of foreign eggs. Of course, there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The Standing Committee is an independent holy, and it would be perfectly absurd for any Government Department to attempt to influence their decision. Mr. Mitchell Innes, the distinguished lawyer who presides over that Committee, certainly does not interpret this Bill as in any way interfering with his discretion, and he has shown that by a statement which he made yesterday in which he made it clear that, in spite of this Bill being before Parliament, the Committee will decide in regard to their recommendations purely on the merits of the case. This Bill has nothing whatever to do directly with the marking of foreign eggs. There has been very little criticism during the Debate for me to answer in retard to the main scheme. After the reasons which I have given in support of this Bill, I confidently ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, because
I believe it will enable the British producer to improve his grading and it will enable him to compete on more favourable terms with that imported produce which is making larger and larger inroads into our market.

Mr. PALING: It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture reads more into the recommendation of the Committee than we do. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the recommendation of the Committee means that if you set up a scheme and give this particular protection, that is all that is necessary before you can have your Order. The recommendation of the Committee says nothing of the sort. It, does not say that a scheme of this sort is all that is necessary. The recommendation of the Committee is to the effect that until a sufficient improvement has been made in the collecting, grading and packing of eggs all over the country, the recommendation should not apply. I have listened to hon. Members opposite stating that a sufficient improvement has been made in grading, but they have not given us any evidence in support of those statements; and they did not give us any indication as to the size or the number of the eggs. It appears from the actual evidence given that the improvement made in this country in the grading and marking of eggs is ridiculously small. The right hon. Gentleman quoted another paragraph in regard to preserved eggs, but I would remind him that the Committee also reported:
During the interval which must elapse while progress is being made on the two lines we have indicated.
It appears that it was in the minds of the members of the Committee that if everything possible were done in the direction of an improvement in the grading and marking of eggs, a long time must elapse. As a matter of fact, only six months have elapsed, and now the right hon. Gentleman thinks that period is sufficient to warrant him in introducing a Bill of this description. That course is totally against anything which the Committee recommended. The Minister of Agriculture has made a lot of play about what has been said concerning nefarious practices, which he has resented. I would like to ask is there any precedent for a Bill of this descrip-
tion? In all applications made for safeguarding it is laid down that the Committee must not be interfered with in any way whatever, and the Department concerned is not allowed to give any indication to the Committee as to what it desires. The Committee is supposed to be entirely impartial, and does not allow any influence to be brought to bear upon it from any quarter whatever. Can the Minister of Agriculture say that the Committee is having no influence brought to bear upon it in regard to this question?
The right hon. Gentleman stated that he would like to issue this Order in spite of the fact that only six months ago the Committee which considered this question came to the decision that no Order ought to be made. When a Committee arrives at a decision which is not in accord with the idea and the desires of the Ministry of Agriculture, is it to be the practice in future for the Minister to set up another Committee every six months until he gets them to arrive at the decision he desires? At a time when a Committee is supposed to be sitting to decide this question, the Minister of Agriculture brings in this Bill, and I say that action of that kind is certainly loading the dice, whether you call it nefarious or not.
The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) objected to the word "nefarious," and he supplied two other words "providence" and "prescience." I think the Minister ought to be very grateful to the hon. Member for Perth for saying such a thing. I would not say that the action of the Minister of Agriculure amounts to bribery or corruption, but it is much nearer to that than it is to providence and prescience. The last thing we ought to do is to interfere in any way with the decision of the Committee, which is supposed to be inquiring into this business. Practically this Bill is saying to the Committee, "The last decision at which you arrived does not suit us. We want a Bill dealing with the grading of eggs, and we shall put into our Bill certain powers which will allow us to do certain things if you will do what we want you to do as a Committee." That appears to me to be loading the dice, and if it be not a nefarious practice, it is coming very near to it.

Major PRICE: I should have thought that the Members of the Opposition, after the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, would have understood what the Bill meant. The last speech to which we have listened seems to show that the hon. Member has not the faintest idea what is contained in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite scorn to have confined their attention to the Amendment which they have taken as stating certain facts 'which in reality are not facts at all. The Amendment says:
the Second Reading of a Bill containing provisions relating to the marketing of imported eggs contrary to the findings of the Standing Committee.
The Bill does not contain a single clause relating to the marking of imported foreign eggs, and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) knows that perfectly well.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Member read Sub-section (2) of Clause 4?

Major PRICE: I have read that Subsection which says—
If and so long as any Order in Council made under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, is in force.
That proviso has to be fulfilled before any Order in Council can he made. Therefore this Bill only applies to something which comes into force after the Committee have given a decision. The high altruistic attitude of the hon. Member for Hillsborough seems to me to be based upon false premises. All the Bill does is to endeavour to help the grading of British eggs. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of saying "We are willing

to help the British farmer," but when a practical measure is put before the House, they invariably oppose it. As a matter of fact, hon. Members opposite have not the faintest notion how to help the British farmer.

Mr. B. SMITH: You have had a pretty good run, and you have not succeeded.

Major PRICE: That is not so, because we have succeeded very well, and that is why you do not like this Bill. The grading of agricultural produce is something which must be encouraged. It has been suggested that we ought to adopt the same method as foreign countries when dealing with the exportation of their produce, but that suggestion is absurd. In our case we are dealing with the home producers, and, consequently, we must have different methods from those employed in a foreign country which has no market except in this free trade country, or some other foreign country. Foreign countries cannot sell their produce at home, and therefore their methods must be different from ours. Hon. Members seem to have concentrated their attention on the Amendment, and not upon the Bill. If they would only give more attention to the Clauses of the Bill, I am sure this Measure would pass at an early stage, and really the Amendment itself is in favour of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 97.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[6.46 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Briant, Frank
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cooper, A. Dun


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Apsley, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)


Atkinson, C.
Buckingham, Sir H,
Crawfurd, H. E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crooke, J. Smedley (Cerltend)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Bainlel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnett. Major Sir Richard
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bennett, A, J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Drewe, C.


Bethel, A.
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Bourne. Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Ellis, R. G.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Fielden, E. B.
Livingstone, A. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Fanham)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Forrest, W
Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Frece, Sir Walter de
Long, Major Eric
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandon, Lord


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lumley, L. R.
Savery, S. S.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shepperson, E. W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Macintyre, I.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grace, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smithers, Waldron


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hacking, Douglas H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harney, E. A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, G (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waddington, R.


Honderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Owen, Major G.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Preston, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Withers, John James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Womersley, W. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Huntingfield, Lord
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hurd, Percy A
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wragg, Herbert


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Remnant, Sir James



Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rice, Sir Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)


Baker, Walter
Grundy, T. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, G. H.
Murnin, H.


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palin, John Henry


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Paling. W.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Potts, John S.


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Riley, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Gardner, J. P.
Kirkwood, D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.


Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John




Sexton, James
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smillie, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wellock, Wilfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.
B. Smith.


Sullivan, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause (Temporary extension of charges on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), is out of order, because it changes the incidence of the rates. The Amendment next on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence)—in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "thirty-two" and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-one"—is not selected.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.)

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to read part of this Clause, so that the House may understand exactly what it means. The Clause lays down that:
.—(1) The board of guardians of every Poor Law union in London shall, not later—

(a) in the case of the half year commencing on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, than twenty-one days after the passing of this Act;
(b) in the case of any subsequent half year, than four weeks before the commencement of the half year;
submit to the Metropolitan Asylums Board estimates in such form as the Minister of Health may prescribe of the expenditure which they propose to incur during that half year for the several purposes in respect of which repayments are to be made out of the metropolitan common poor fund and of the amount so repayable, and may at any time during any half-year submit to them supplementary estimates.
(2) Upon examination of any such estimates submitted by a board of guardians under this Section, and after consideration of any representations made to them on behalf of any board of guardians of a Poor Law union in London, the Metropolitan Asylums Board shall approve the estimates of the amounts repayable out of the metropolitan common poor fund either as submitted or subject to such reduction (if any) in respect of any specified purpose as the Metropolitan Asylums Board may think fit to make, and shall furnish the district auditor with a copy of the estimates as approved.
That is all that I need read, because it is the operative part of the Clause. I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a Bill to carry on an emergency Measure which was passed for the purpose of rectifying what I think everyone connected with local government in London considered to be a great grievance, a grievance against which the poorer districts of London had protested for many years, and with which they had endeavoured to get this House to deal. The House took action after a number of councillors and others were sent to prison for not paying certain dues to the central authority, and the arrangements that were then made between the richer unions and the poorer unions was that a fund should be instituted into which all the unions concerned should pay, but from which the poorer unions would, of course, draw much more than they paid in. As each succeeding year has passed, there have been complaints from the richer unions that more permament arrangements were not brought forward, and successive Ministers of Health have promised time after time, with regard to each renewal of the Bill, that it should be the last, and that there should be a complete reform of the Poor Law, when all these anomalies and difficulties would be dealt with.
The present Ministry has taken a course this year which I think is quite unprecedented in the history of the relationships which have existed between the central government and the local autho-
rities. The Minister of Health has allowed himself to be consulted, both by the paying-in unions and by those that draw out of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, on the question of the rate per day for maintenance that should be paid from the Fund; but, although these representatives of those two sections of the Poor Law unions in London have met him, he has never had the courtesy to adopt the usual method of consulting with them on the proposition that he brought before this House, like, as it were, a bolt from the blue, as a measure for controlling expenditure. I think I can say quite truthfully that, until the right hon. Gentleman produced his Bill, no single board of guardians, no association of Poor Law unions, either in the Metropolis or in the country, had been consulted on the subject.
7.0 p.m.
He brought this forward, and he and the Parliamentary Secretary defended it on Second Reading on the ground that it was the only course open to them to restrain certain boards of guardians with whose policy and administration they profoundly disagreed. The Parliamentary Secretary said, at the conclusion of the last Debate, that there was nothing to reply to. I would ask him to reply to this proposition. I say that there is no need to set up this new machinery of control contained in Clause 2. The Minister at the present moment has the power, through his inspectors and the auditor, to deal with extravagance, bad administration, or anything else a board of guardians may do which is illegal. This Common Poor Fund is not a new thing: it has only been extended. That fund was under the control of Sir Hugh Owen until his death and, I believe, at the present time it is under the control of one of the principal officers of the Ministry. From that office there has always been a certain amount of control as to what could or could not be charged upon the funds.
From the point of view of control, there is no necessity for setting up any new body like this, because the Minister has already that control in his office. He may say that the business has got so large and the variety of interests and cases to be dealt with so numerous that one man can no longer, as in the past,
attend to it and attend to other duties as well. There is no reason why he should not have added to the staff already at the Ministry. If he says that he cannot deal with the large number of individual cases with which the auditors and inspectors are now dealing and of which we read in the White Papers, then I say that this new body will not be able to do it either. It will only be able to carry out the control of expenditure in the same way as Sir Hugh Owen did. No one will argue that the Metropolitan Asylum Board or a committee of that body are going to be able to deal with individual cases or decide whether or not a ward or institution shall be equipped in a certain way. They will only be able to take the demand for expenditure made on the fund and say that they think it is too much. They can only deal with things in the bulk. Why, then, was there any necessity to set up this new machinery and to put it under the control of that Board? Had the Ministry not already got the machinery of control that has been used for a very considerable periods? In opposing the Metropolitan Asylum Board, we find ourselves, for once in our lives, supported by those entitled to speak for the Poor Law unions, both of London and the country. Not a single voice has been raised among the Poor Law unions on behalf of this proposition that the Minister is forcing through the House. It has been opposed everywhere by all those who have had experience of the Poor Law. The Minister of Health has treated us in London with no courtesy at all in this matter. It may be that we in Poplar do not deserve any courtesy at his hands, but I should have imagined that the City of London and the City of Westminster and the rest of the bigger London unions had the right to ask that they should be consulted before they were placed under the heel of a non-elected body.
In order to strengthen my case, I will read a document issued by the Association of Poor Law Unions. This is not a Bolshevist, Labour, or a Socialist organisation, but an organisation which is almost the most Conservative organisation in the country. It is presided over by the chairman of the Fulham Board, which is notoriously anti everything that I am pro. It is a board which the Minister considers as one of the best,
because it relieves the poor by giving them nothing. Even this body, Tory as it is, sent out this letter, which is dated 26th March:
Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions Bill).
I am directed to inform you that at a meeting of the Metropolitan Committee of this Association"—
—so the Minister will not be able to say that it is men from other parts of the country who have carried these resolutions—
on Friday, 23rd instant, consideration was given to the proposals contained in Clause 2 of the above Bill, when the following resolutions were passed: That this Committee views with great concern the proposals of Clause 2 of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill now before Parliament, whereby the estimates of the expenditure of the individual boards of guardians in the Metropolis are to be submitted to the Metropolitan Asylum Board for approval or otherwise, as such Board may think fit. The Committee is of opinion that any power given in regard to the review of the estimates of the boards of guardians should remain in the hands of the Minister.'
Speaking personally, much as I detest the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, I would very much rather trust the estimates to himself and the gentlemen controlling the Common Poor Fund than to the Metropolitan Asylum Board. They say extremes meet occasionally, and on this occasion I am with the gentlemen who passed this resolution:
'That, having regard to the functions in respect of which the Metropolitan Asylum Board has been constituted by Parliament, this Committee is of opinion that such Board is not a suitable body to review the estimates of boards of guardians or to which such estimates should be submitted for the purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill.'
I do not think you can get a stronger expression of opinion than that.
'This Committee is of opinion that the exercise of the powers proposed by the Bill should be entrusted to a Standing Joint Committee consisting of one representative elected for each board of guardians, an independent chairman and vice-chairman, four nominated members, of whom two should he officials experienced in the operations of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and that any board of guardians should have a right of appeal against the findings of such Standing Joint Committee.'
This proves conclusively my statement that the right hon. Gentleman treated London quite contemptuously by not consulting them about this fundamental change before bringing it forward. The letter continues:
I respectfully add that, contrary to the usual practice of the Minister with reference to proposals for legislation affecting Poor Law administration, there has been no consultation with this Association, which comprises over 600 boards in England and Wales, and includes all the London boards of guardians.
That fact alone should have impelled the House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill, because however much you may think boards of guardians should be abolished, they are still legally constituted authorities, and have as much right to be consulted before legislation of this kind is put through as have other local authorities where their interest may be threatened.
What sort of body is the Metropolitan Asylum Board? It is a body that is constituted in the main to deal with public health. It is true it deals in a small way with sick children. It is also true that for the last ten years or so it has dealt with the casuals, but in the main it was established to deal with fever hospitals and so on. The men and women on that Board are nominated and elected by various boards of guardians throughout London, but they are not elected on any regular plan. Some boards have more members than others, and some have a higher rateable value than others and less representation, but they are a body of men and women who are selected by the boards of guardians up to a certain number, and there are added to these a number of men and women nominees of the Minister. It may very well be that on occasions the people who will have the casting vote as to whether a board of guardians is to have so much or so little money out of the fund will be those nominated by the Minister.
The assumption of the Minister in calling upon this body to do this work is that they have some special aptitude for it. I have nothing to say against the individual members of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, but I am not aware, nor do I think any other London Member is aware, of any particular piece of work that that Board has done that should give it any claim to be considered as superior to the ordinary hoards of guardians in the Metropolis. I tried very hard some years ago to relieve boards of guardians of any sort of connection or arrangements with contractors. I could not get that carried for all boards of
guardians, but in Poplar I—and when I say "I" I mean a few of us banded together—persuaded our boards to do away with local contracting and to take practically all our goods from the Metropolitan Asylum Board stores. We have had to give that up, because we found, not anything corrupt—I do not want to be considered in any way as suggesting or thinking that—but that their contractors were no better than any other contractors and that we were continually in as much difficulty and trouble as we formerly were when we were contracting ourselves.
Before we gave up, I tried to get some different arrangement made. No one can say I am a friend of the majority that governs the London County Council, but I am certain that if we could have had an arrangement by which we drew our stores from the stores of the London County Council, we would not have had the difficulties that confronted us again and again in reference to the Metropolitan Asylum Board. It is not an up-to-date Board. It is not a Board that anyone would describe as progressive in any way; it is not even progressive in the sense that the Young Men's Christian Association are considered progressive on the other side; it is not even progressive Toryism. Therefore why the right hon. Gentleman, in looking round to find some authority to put us under chose this particular Board passes my comprehension, except for this reason, possibly. One of the late inspectors of the Ministry, and certain of the people who gave evidence before the Royal Commission, were very much obsessed with the idea that you ought to remove Poor Law relief and its administration as far as possible away from the elected people and put the control in the hands of people who were far removed from public pressure, the pressure of the people who needed relief.
I can understand that proposition, though I should fight it probably, but I think that if this House of Commons is going to adopt such a policy as that, it ought not to adopt it by this kind of side issue, but it ought to be done for the whole of the country and not for London alone. But even so, I have discussed this matter with a late inspector several times, and I have always maintained, and
I maintain now, that the Metropolitan Asylum Board is of all bodies the worst that could be suggested, first of all, because of its personnel. The people forming it are far removed from the Boards with whom they are going to deal, because as a rule the men and women who are sent there are people who do not take much interest in the rest of the work, and, therefore, I consider that it is altogether the worst kind of body that could be put forward for this purpose.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 states:
Upon examination of any such estimates submitted by a board of guardians under this Section, and after consideration of any representations made to them on behalf of any board of guardians of a Poor Law union in London, the Metropolitan Asylum Board shall approve the estimates of the amounts repayable out of the metropolitan common poor fund either as submitted or subject to such reduction (if any) in respect of any specified purpose. …
I want the House to consider that this body will be able now to determine not merely the amount of relief. So often in this House, when we are discussing questions of Poor Law, Members get their minds filled with only one side of Poor Law administration, but I would like to point out that the Metropolitan Asylum Board will be able to determine the number of officers whose salaries shall be charged to this Fund and will be able to determine, because of that power, the number of officers and the remuneration that a board of guardians may pay. I know the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary, Secretary will get up and say, "But the hoards of guardians Can employ extra officers if they like." Yes, but those boards that are poor and have to look after their expenditure very closely do not want to be put into that position. This Fund was set up in order that the salaries of the necessary officers should come out of it, and under this proposition the Metropolitan Asylum Board will be put in the position of saying how many relieving officers, how many labour masters, and how many nurses there shall be, and what hours they shall work, and the general administration of the boards will be at the mercy of the Metropolitan Asylum Board.
It will be no use standing up and saying that there is nothing in this Clause which says that. There is not, but this Clause does say definitely that the Metropolitan Asylum Board may reject certain
items of the expenditure that is put before it, or may reduce it, and, as I say, by so doing, it will be able to force boards of guardians to administer their institutions in whatever way the Metropolitan Asylum Board may determine. We all represent districts where there are boards of guardians, but there are also Members here who represent districts where there are town councils, urban councils, borough councils, city councils, and so on, and I want to ask any of them whether they think that the great City of Manchester, for instance, would allow itself to be treated in this fashion.
I might ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, taking his union of Birmingham, which spends relatively speaking, a large sum of money on Poor Law relief and whose income, I understand, is derived from the whole of the. City of Birmingham, he would dare to put any authority like this over that board of guardians in Birmingham. When I challenged him about this he said, "But they have not got a common fund like you have in London." I am tired of saying, as I have said it over and over again, that we do not want to spend your money without any control, but we object altogether to being given the responsibility to administer and then having somebody on top of us controlling the money that is necessary to carry on our expenditure. If you wanted to do anything of this sort at all, you ought to have adopted the proposition that was put before you by the Association of Poor Law Unions and taken the question entirely out of our hands as localities.
I will close by saying that the right hon. Gentleman has brought in this Bill for no reason that I can see except to try and curtail the activities of boards of guardians with whose policy he happens to disagree. I also want to say that his other object, so far as I can see,, is to have a run to see whether it would be possible to administer London in this way, and if it becomes at all tolerable, I do not think this House will hear much more about his big scheme of Poor Law reform. I believe that this is a trial run in London to see how it works, but there are a few of us who, under great difficulties, will do our level best to see that it does not have the run that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are probably hoping it will have.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that probably Members of this House who are not representative of London constituencies must very often wonder how it is that there always seems to be something in regard to London questions which is very different from the administration and government of our great provincial cities. One of the great evils from which we suffer in London is a multiplicity of authorities, authorities which are constantly overlapping in their duties, and we are also suffering from having, in the administrative county of London, which is the same area as that over which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is collected, a number of cities which very largely have to bear their own burdens and are cities with very different social conditions.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set clown by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
This Bill, though it comes before us as a private Bill, raises public issues of fundamental national importance. I know that there are large numbers of Members in all parts of the House who desire to take part in this very important discussion, and therefore I propose to set forward our ease against the Bill as briefly as I can. I am happy to think that both those who are promoting this Bill and those who are opposed to it are agreed about one thing. We are agreed in regard to the grave injury that is brought by these diseases on the health and life of the community, and as to the vital necessity of taking steps to eradicate them by every possible means. But we differ from the promoters of the
Bill fundamentally as to the method to be adopted. The promoters believe that compulsion is the best means to the end that we both desire. We believe that compulsion will have precisely opposite results to those which they contemplate.
I wish to emphasise this, because the opinion appears to be widely held that our opposition to this Bill is based solely, or mainly, upon our objection to the infringement of individual liberty. For my own part, I desire to say that, grave as is the infringement of individual liberty that this Bill would involve, I would even be willing to tolerate it if I really thought that the enactment of the Bill would operate more speedily to get rid of this disease in the country. But I am convinced, both by the teaching of experience and by the commonsense view of human nature, that the exact reverse would be the case.
The Bill, as put before us, is of a somewhat hybrid character. We have the text as it is printed, but concurrently with the text the promoters have circulated a memorandum in which they propose gratuitously to make very considerable Amendments. I cannot help feeling suspicious of these modifications so gratuitiously offered. I am a little bit in the position that
Timeo Danaos et done ferentes,
because my good friends who are promoting the Bill must know quite well that if you are to have compulsion there must be means to carry that compulsion into effect. Therefore, if they remove the overt means by which that compulsion can be brought about, it can only be because they realise that there are latent means by which they can carry out their will in other ways. But in whatever form this Bill is presented, whether in its original form or in the form in which they suggest it should be amended, I find it objectionable.
We are asked to allow the Second Reading to-day in order that the Bill may go upstairs to a Committee and be dealt with there. But it is here and now that the main underlying idea of the Bill has to be settled. If this House is going to dispose of that main underlying idea, it must make the decision here and now. I hope that no one will vote for the Second Reading in the belief that the one
main idea can be modified after the Bill has gone to a Committee. What is the defence which the promoters offer for this Bill? They say that it is necessary to provide compulsion in order to catch defaulters. They have large numbers of people coming voluntarily for treatment, but they find that before the treatment has been fully developed and before cure is completely effected, a certain number default, and they say—there is a good deal of specious argument supporting that view—that if only they could introduce the principle of compulsion they could oblige those who come for treatment to continue until the cure is complete. The mistake that they make in that view is this: You cannot isolate the question of default; you cannot graft compulsion on to the voluntary system. You can either have a voluntary system or you can have a compulsory system, but it is impossible to imagine that you can have both.
A vital issue which the House has to realise is the extent to which compulsion will cut off the supply of patients. At the present time all patients are voluntary. They know that they have a right to be treated or not to be treated—to be continually treated as long as they like—and in consequence they know that their wishes will be respected and that everything will be done in order to make it easy for them to go forward. If you carry this Bill you will have two classes of patients, those who come voluntarily and those who are brought compulsorily. Let us take the volunteers first. Can anyone with any knowledge of human nature doubt that under this Bill the volunteers will be considerably reduced in number? Those who come will know that they will have to submit to the treatment, whether they like or not. Perhaps they will have to submit, if they go to a clinic, to such a doctor as is prescribed for them, and, they will have to continue their treatment until what is called a cure is effected. I appeal to the medical men in the House to say whether any two medical men will agree exactly as to when a cure is effected. If that be so, from the patient's point of view we know that there will be an apprehension that this treatment may be continued almost indefinitely. In consequence of that, large numbers of people will hesitate to come.
Further, we all know that in every form of treatment there is a certain element of risk and danger, and it may
well be that certain unfortunate events occur in certain cases. If that should get about, the opposition to coming for treatment will be very much greater still. But it is not only that fewer patients will offer themselves voluntarily. A vital question is, at what stage will they offer themselves for treatment? At the present time patients in many cases come in the very early stages of the disease. If that statement be doubted, it can be proved by the fact that of 19,000 volunteers over 4,000, or something like 22 per cent., came and were found not to be subject to the disease at all, which shows that people were so willing to have the treatment applied that they came even when it was quite unnecessary. But if this Bill be carried and people know that when they come they are going to be subject to this long period of treatment and under compulsion right through, they will postpone coming, and postpone it to the time when some of the most important opportunities for dealing with the complaint have gone. Further, during the interval they will very likely consult quacks, because they will hope in that way to escape the full rigours of the complete treatment.
Passing from the volunteers let us come to the conscripts. Will they make up in numbers for the falling off of those who come voluntarily? Who are they going to be? They are not going to be the well-to-do, because the well-to-do will consult their own private practitioners, and as there is no compulsory notification under this Bill their cases will not be notified. It is the poor, and the poor only, who are going to be dealt with. They are going to be informed against to the medical officer of health by a medical practitioner. But where is the medical practitioner going to get his original information? Is it suggested that he is going to get it from anyone who chooses to come and believes that he or she has been infected by the person in question? That surely is too preposterous to be believed. Or is the medical practitioner going to get it, elsewhere, from his own personal observation in hospital or clinic? If he is going to get it in the second way, is it not patent that that is going to have a very deleterious effect upon the coming voluntarily of men and women to be treated in hospitals and clinics? Some of the most valuable work that is being done now in this country, the coming of
mothers to pre-natal clinics, will he very gravely injured in consequence. But I think it is very likely that public opinion will be too strong to allow this miscellaneous dragging into the net of all sorts-of men and women in this way, and it is very likely that in the end these provisions would really be confined to prostitutes. If that be so, it would re-open the chapter of failure that many of us thought was closed for good.
Just a few words with regard to the defaulters. The Edinburgh Corporation, in a statement that they have issued, have shown that in the five years from 1922 to 1926 the defaulters fell from 44 per cent. to 29 per cent. of those who were under treatment. This figure includes those who were dead and those, such as seamen, who could not possibly go on with the treatment: so that the actual number of defaulters is very much smaller than the figures shown. It is worth while noting that, even if compulsion be adopted, it by no means follows that all the defaulters will be kept under treatment. In New South Wales, where compulsory treatment has been in existence for some time, they have succeeded in bringing back only 25 per cent. of those who defaulted. Is it seriously suggested that for the sake of 25 per cent. of the defaulters the whole principle of our treatment of these diseases is to he reversed and that we are to try this dangerous experiment?
We are recommended to this Bill on the ground that it will remain in force for under five years, and that then the question can be reconsidered. What are the grounds on which we could reconsider it at that date? Is it suggested that there will be any reliable statistics to help us to come to a conclusion then? It may be thought that if the number of new cases shows a falling off, that will be used as an argument to prove the success of the experiment in eradicating the disease. But that will merely prove that fewer people are coming to be treated. We have definite medical opinion in Australia where this compulsory system has been in force in certain States. I find that a medical conference on venereal disease held in Melbourne in, 1922 passed the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this conference there is no evidence to show that the passing of this legislation [i.e., the compulsory V.D. measures] has resulted in any reduc-
tion of congenital venereal infections. Judging from the infantile mortality rates under one month, there has hitherto been no such reduction.
I have put forward the grounds of my opposition to this Bill. I am strengthened in that opposition by my knowledge that the society in this country which has studied this question in great detail for many years—the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene—is diametrically opposed to the passage of this Bill and believes it to be a thoroughly retrograde step. We have also the support of all the women's societies in the country with a few small exceptions. [Interruption.]Yes, we have the bulk of the women's societies in support of the opposition to this Bill, and you can be quite sure that women are not anxious to have the spread of venereal disease.
Those are my objections. I have not based them on sentimental grounds and I have not even based them upon the fact that some years ago Mrs. Josephine Butler carried out a campaign which was thoroughly successful in the repeal of the Acts of that time, because I know it may be said by my hon. Friends who are supporting this proposal that the two things are different. But in my view they are certainly cognate, and it will he a strange irony if at a time when we are celebrating the centenary of that great woman, such a retrograde Measure as the one which this House is asked to pass through its Second Reading to-night should be placed upon the Statute Book of this country.

Dr. LITTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I propose to base the arguments I am about to use entirely upon medical reasons for supporting the rejection of this Bill. I may perhaps claim some special right to speak in that sense, because for 26 years I have been at the head of two hospital departments in London where the treatment of these diseases is part of the work of the clinic which I conduct. I have seen very great changes in that long period. I go back to two great names in the history of syphilis, Hutchinson and Fournier, under both of whom I sat as a pupil. Hutchinson taught that two years was quite a sufficient treatment to guarantee a cure. Fournier at the same period
taught that eight years was not more than an adequate period for continuance of treatment. These were rather irreconcilable views. Fournier has been proved to be far more right than Hutchinson and more prolonged treatment is the rule for both these diseases than was the case when I began to practise. The treatment of syphilis especially has been very materially altered by the introduction of two great inventions—a test for syphilis and a certain kind of treatment. Too much force has been attached to both these inventions, as I propose to show, but there is common ground even among medical men, who differ so greatly, that early treatment is of essential importance in both diseases for two reasons: Infectivity is earlier checked and the prospect of ultimate cure is very greatly increased in proportion to the earliness of the treatment.
It is therefore far more important to get a new case than to go on treating an old case, and the Edinburgh Corporation seems to me to have entirely missed the significance of the treatment of syphilis in the importance they attach to the question of defaulters. I think it must be explained what "defaulters" means. It means nothing more than that certain persons leave off treatment before the authorities who look after them think that they are cured. The number of defaulters becomes a matter of a personal equation. The tests which are applied vary in different clinics, and it is almost impossible to compare figures. The figures relating to defaulters attending the same clinics in Edinburgh have been demonstrated as having fallen in a period of five years from 44 per cent. to 29 per cent., so that the main reason that we have been given for this very revolutionary proposal has been by their own statistics shown to be of diminishing importance.
The Trevethin Committee, which reported in 1923, made a certain tentative suggestion that special measures might be necessary to deal with defaulters, but they also said that defaulting was not so serious a menace to public health as the statistics would imply. Not only is the number of defaulters decreasing, but the whole incidence of both diseases is rapidly diminishing in this country. I have that upon the authority of clinics in the city of London. This has been under the voluntary methods which were
instituted no longer ago than 1916. The period which has elapsed since then is hardly sufficient to declare that the system has failed, even if it had failed, but I think one can say that the system has been eminently successful.
I want to say that medical opinion is overwhelmingly against compulsory measures, and I give certain statements in support of that contention. The Royal Commission of 1916 was much the most authoritative expression of opinion upon these matters. The experts called by that Commission were the very flower of the profession in our country. Their opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of voluntary, secret, confidential services, and upon that recommendation the clinics were established with an expressed promise to patients that secrecy would be observed. Upon that system, the whole of the success, the very great success, of these clinics has been established. The British Medical Association in 1923 issued a special circular to all its members—something like 30,000. The response to that circular was overwhelmingly against the introduction of compulsory notification of venereal diseases. The compulsory notification of venereal diseases is a much less serious infringement of liberty than compulsory treatment, so that the greater carries the less. In 1923, the Trevethin Committee reported. It consisted largely of eminent doctors. They were not men who knew syphilis or gonorrhœa from personal medical experience and therefore were not a very happy committee, but, as far as their authority goes, they did support the view that compulsory measures were not likely to achieve the purpose which was to secure early treatment.
The Edinburgh Corporation opposes this expression of medical opinion by a statement that the Edinburgh division of the British Medical Association at a meeting they held in Edinburgh voted in favour of the Edinburgh Corporation Bill. I took the trouble to find out how many persons attended that meeting. I was told that there were something like 60. It was not a unanimous vote, but a majority vote. There are 1,500 persons practising medicine in Edinburgh, and 60 out of 1,500 surely cannot be said to voice the opinion of the medical profession in Edinburgh. The Bill will be absolutely unworkable without attention being given to the prospects of co-operation by the
medical profession, The vast majority of the medical profession are opposed, and the must be opposed to compulsion, because one of the most important traditions of the medical profession is the sacredness of the professional secret, and if that tradition is threatened, the medical man at once shows his opposition and refuses to have anything to do with the proposal. It is suggested by the medical officer of health of Edinburgh, who is the protagonist of this Bill in Edinburgh, that they are not relying upon the doctors, and that they are going to obtain their information from a crowd of "competent officials attached to public health departments." They will be asked, I presume, to go foraging around inquiring into the venereal history of the neighbourhood. I should not like to be one of those officials visiting a quarter which I know well—the East End of London, where I was medical officer for some years—for I think I should receive more brickbats than information. This is not a medical agitation, but a bureaucratic agitation. It is the corporations and not medical bodies who are seeking this Bill.
I propose to give some medical reasons why the Bill would be unworkable. Compulsory treatment of diseases is an entirely new principle with us. It is suggested that, because the specific fevers are subject to compulsory notification, that is an argument for the introduction of this Bill. I would point out that the specific fevers run a very definite well-established, perfectly circumscribed course which inevitably ceases at a given time, which is well recognised. There is no trouble at all about knowing when a case of scarlet fever is and is not infectious, but the same statements do not apply to syphilis and gonorrhœa. There is no comparison possible. The infectivity of syphilis and gonorrhœa is subject to no standard, and I will read a section from the Trevethin Report which emphasises that and which, in itself, is a sufficient argument against this Bill. The Trevethin Report says:
There is another grave difficulty in the way of any form of notification reinforced by measures to compel treatment that in the present state of knowledge there is no standard of non-infectivity or cure generally accepted by the medical profession, and until this has been attained it is difficult to see how any system involving notification and compulsory measures of treatment could be applied.
That is absolutely true of the scientific position of this question at the present moment. There is no agreement upon this question in the medical profession. Reliance to be placed upon both the new test and the new treatment has been greatly over-estimated by lay opinion. We started—I remember it very well—with the idea that we had a perfectly easy scientific test. We started with the idea that we had a method of treatment which would eliminate syphilis. Ehrlich himself announced that his drug was going to sterilise the patient by one dose. Both these theories have gone by the board absolutely. It is a very difficult test to apply. It is a physiological test not a chemical test, and certain laboratories have become famous for their skill or otherwise in performing the test which is extremely difficult to apply.
8.0 p.m.
It is proposed by the Bill that detention and treatment should be compulsory until the patient can obtain a certificate of cure from "any medical officer." Detention has been ostensibly abandoned by the corporation by the relinquishment of Clause 3, but I was told by one of the protagonists for the corporation that they did not attach very much importance to relinquishing that Clause because they thought they could get all they wanted by the application of Section 7 of the Public Health Act by which any infectious disease could be detained until infectivity was over. So detention is still contemplated by the terms of the Bill, detention for periods which vary enormously, detention resting upon a certificate given by any medical practitioner. I am not behind any man in the House in my respect and love for my profession, but I recognise its limitations, and I think it is impossible at present to expect that the general profession throughout the country will be in a position to give certificates of that kind which will be of any value at all. The tests and the treatment for this disease require very wide and highly specialised experience, and teamwork by many experts. A case presenting itself at a hospital is not treated by one man. It is turned over to half a dozen people, who will go into it very carefully before making any report. Is that possible anywhere in general practice? Yet we
are to rely upon a certificate given by any medical practitioner.
We are also to rely upon the treatment given by any medical practitioner. Again I say that the modern highly specialised treatment is very dangerous except in highly skilled hands. I have had three deaths from "606" in my personal practice. We a.re going to compel persons by law to submit to treatment which carries those risks! It is an impossible proposition in the present state of medical science. Certificates given under these conditions will be largely valueless. The patient will be assured that he is cured when he is not cured. The practitioner will have a very strong motive for giving a certificate. Common humanity will urge him to give a certificate, when he can, for the patient to avoid the horrible consequences of this Bill in the matter of detention and treatment. He will be like a bad bridge player, who discards from fright and not from judgment: he will give certificates in order to get the patient out of a hole, and those certificates will be valueless and dangerous because the patient will believe he is cured. The defaulter has not that illusion at all. He knows he is not cured, but the patient who is told he is cured is in a different position and a source of great danger, not only to himself but to the public. The second alternative is that the patient shall be kept under treatment for much longer than is necessary. Again a very Revere handicap to the citizen who is, unfortunately, caught in this hideous machine.
It is suggested that the experiment can be restricted to Edinburgh and to five years. The first contention is dropped by the supporters because they say if Edinburgh gets it Glasgow, Aberdeen and a dozen corporations will get it. It cannot be restricted to Edinburgh. It cannot be effectively compulsory if it is so restricted, because nothing is easier than to get out of the area of compulsion and go to an area where the more sensible voluntary system is still in force. A short railway journey to Glasgow takes the patient out of the operation of the Edinburgh Corporation. If the Bill becomes universal we may get a system of compulsion, but we cannot get a system of compulsion unless it is universal. It
cannot be confined strictly to Edinburgh, and it cannot be restricted in point of time, because the effect of introducing compulsion would be at once to annihilate the whole voluntary system. After five years of compulsion what patient will think that he can go to Edinburgh and again have confidential treatment.
The voluntary system cannot survive such a shock as this would imply, and it is farcical to suggest that we can return to where we are without any damage done. It is as if a surgeon should suggest cutting off a patient's nose in order to give him a better one, but if the patient said, "Can I get, back my own nose afterwards?" the surgeon would be discreetly silent on the point. That is the position here. You cannot go back to where you were after the experiment. The voluntary system will be finally destroyed, and I ask the House not to take a step which will lead to that terrible disaster. These clinics have been giving the most devoted service for years. A great success has been made of them and we are succeding daily more and more. There is no reason for panic legislation. Let us go on with this highly successful system. It is said the system of finding out defaulters in Edinburgh is very incomplete and there is only one officer to do it. Let us improve our methods of administering the voluntary system but do not let us scrap a going concern for one which is of such very doubtful advantage.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I think the best course to pursue is not at this stage of the Debate to be drawn into the detailed allegations of the Mover and Seconder of the opposition to the Bill. I am bound to say their case was moderately stated and the one criticism I would make about the Mover is that he talked a great deal about statistics which he said proved the non-success of compulsory and similar methods in other countries, but he went on to say, for some obscure reason that I could not follow, that if we had an experiment for a certain number of years in Scotland the statistics that would be acquired could not be relied upon. That is a sort of argument that is hardly admissible. Either we think there is something in statistics or we dismiss them altogether.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I never quoted statistics as proving that the thing had been a failure in Australia. I
said medical opinion in Australia did not consider that any good had resulted from it.

Sir P. FORD: I think that opinion was founded upon the statistics they collected. Or was it just a haphazard guess? With regard to the second speaker, I would really suggest that he himself admits there has been a considerable conflict of medical opinion. I would suggest also that in Edinburgh, which has one of the finest schools, and where we have the latest methods and latest information, we feel we are not to be guided by the more antiquated ways of looking at these things. What the hon. Member proves, on his own statement, is that there is a conflict of opinion on a very technical subject, and I do not think the Floor of the House is the place where these things can be satisfactorily cleared up.
Having, I hope without offence, stated my objection to certain implications in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and recognising the very temperate way in which they have stated their case, I think I might state what seem to me to be the reasons why we are entitled to ask for a Second Reading of the Bill. Its object has nothing to do with moral or social problems. It is to stamp out disease, and the power of some form of compulsion is sought to deal with what we might call the dead end of cases, which for some years have remained steadily at between 900 and 1,000. The clinic has been run, as is generally admitted, with the greatest of skill and success, and yet we cannot get away from these 900 to 1,000 centres of infection every year which are going about as dangers to the neighbourhood and the country. There is no suggestion on the part of the promoters of the Bill that voluntary work should cease, but we say when you come to a certain type of case, the case that is perhaps not entirely responsible, a case which may be perhaps recklessly vicious, and is entirely recalcitrant, you want to have more power to deal with it.
One objection to the Bill is that it interferes with personal liberty. Honestly I do not think it interferes with personal liberty more than any of the regulations under the Public Health Act, where certain types of disease are notifiable and people have to submit to treat-
ment and be segregated until they are cured. Then we are told the evil will be driven underground, that it will be evaded and people will not go to the clinics. The Edinburgh clinic has been run on lines rather different from what have been adopted in most other centres. People are treated in a friendly way, a beneficent way. They tell their experiences to others, and they know they have nothing to fear and everything to gain. The opinion of the medical officer of health and the officers who deal with these cases so successfully ought, I think, to entitle them to some consideration. Their view is that can get on perfectly well, but there are a certain number of cases, the dead end of cases, that remain stubbornly recalcitrant and cannot be brought in without compulsion, and the great work that is being done voluntarily, and which will not suffer by this compulsion being enforced, is to a large extent being undermined by the fact that these cases cannot be dealt with. That is the reason why they have asked for these powers. It seems to me that people who have made a success of this work, and whose success have been acclaimed throughout the medical world, should have a little attention paid to their views in these matters. It is said that it is very easy to escape from the area. Not only as a Parliamentary representative of Edinburgh but as a citizen born and bred in Edinburgh, I say that if they did escape from the area I should be very glad, but what would happen would he that other districts would find that it would be to their advantage to adopt similar measures, and soon there would be no escape for the people who are a running source and menace to the people of this country and they would be dealt with wherever they went.
Do not let people say: "We lead virtuous lives. We never run risks of that kind." Do not imagine that it is only in immorality that that sort of thing may happen. In a very large number of cases it may happen that you can get the infection from a public drinking cup, or you can get it, so doctors will tell you, by the use of a common towel in a railway station lavatory. Those things have been known to happen, and that is a danger which is incurred from people who are in a state of infection. There are
numbers of up-to-date doctors who will back me up in saying that there is a danger when these infected people are handling our food. Therefore, do not let us think that because we are virtuous and because we run in the straight and narrow way that we are not threatened by this menace. It is a tremendous menace to the whole of society, and we want to clear up that dead end.
What are the actual powers that are sought in this Bill? Allusion has been made to the Amendment which the promoters are willing to accept if they get a Second Reading of the Bill. For the most part, there is not a great deal of substance in the Amendments, but there is one important Amendment to cut out Clause 3 (3) which is the operative Clause. That Sub-section says:
Where it is certified by the Medical Officer of Health that a person is suffering from venereal disease and liable to infect other persons … it shall be lawful for any magistrate or judge of police … on production of such certificate or on being satisfied by medical evidence of the necessity or desirability in the public interest of the removal and detention, to grant warrant to remove such person to a hospital and to detain him therein.
That has been deleted, because that is not the proper way to deal with that sort of case in the first instance. I admit, and I think it is right, that the same power still remains to public health authorities as the last recourse. In the Bill it is laid down that persons who refuse treatment or who default from treatment and will not come back for treatment can be dealt with in the first instance by a fine, but there is still Section 54 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, which gives power, on a magistrate's warrant, to remove a contumatious case who will not submit, and to have him segregated. Hon. Members talk about compulsion. What is the nature of the compulsion? In the first place, there is no compulsory notification. In the second place, there is no compulsory examination or compulsory treatment in this sense, that no doctor can, by saying: "I have a warrant to do it," forcibly examine any patient, man or woman; and no patient who is taken, even in the last resource, to a hospital, can be forced to take any medicine, to suffer any injections or to have any physical treatment. There is no compulsion at all. What we simply say is, that
where it has been established that there are these dangerous cases we are, surely, entitled to segregate them, and if their sense does not teach them to take treatment, they remain segregated and remain out of the way of giving infection to other people. With all due regard to sentiment for these unfortunate people, I would rather that they suffered in this way if they have not the sense to take treatment, than that innocent people should suffer because of our false sentimentality towards them.
I do not like the suggestion that this is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I would rather have seen, along with this proposal, compulsory notification, but I do not think that the opinion of the country is yet ripe for that. How is the information brought? In one Subsection it is stated that the medical officer of health, if he is informed and has proper reasons to believe that there is a patient who ought to be treated, may take steps to serve a notice on him and say: "You must either produce a certificate from a doctor or from a clinic"—I think it would be better if they had to go to the clinic, where the acknowledged expert is—"that you are free or that you are undergoing treatment, you must come to be treated." The information will come to the medical officer in the case of children born with congenital disease from the parents who seek attendance for the child, or it might be brought by a private doctor. If a private doctor had a patient who refused treatment he would be entitled to go and inform the medical officer of health. I am afraid that he might not go, but the man or the woman who is going to employ the doctor will want to get their money's worth and see that he takes the necessary steps for a cure. The difficulty that has been made over that point is grossly exaggerated. The medical officer is not entitled to act on any information except from a doctor, unless he takes reasonable steps to make sure.
If hon. Members suggest that this is going to be an open channel for blackmail, I do not believe it. I do not believe that any responsible medical officer is going to do these things in a lighthearted manner. If the information which is laid proves to be false, not only is there a small fine provided for in the Bill but an action for damages for a
very considerable sum will lie. One hon. Member, who is a doctor, did not seem to have as high an opinion of members of the medical service as I have in regard to some of the things which they may be tempted to do. I can assure him that the doctors would not do that sort of thing in Scotland, and I do not think they would do them in England. I think it is a case of exaggeration. In Scotland and I am sure in England, the Court is always very jealous of encroachment on the liberty of the subject, and they would lay the onus of proving that any information was laid in good faith very severely on the person who laid it. The safeguards there are perfectly sufficient. We have to weigh up the advantage in some rather hypotheical cases of doing a possible injury against the necessity for clearing up by compulsion what seems to be a fixed remainder of cases which are a danger to the whole community.
I have quoted the view of clinic officials, and the quotations which have been made from the Report of the Royal Commission tend to emphasise the desirability of having the question really thrashed out in a judicial way. I can quote to the House what the Royal Commission said in 1916 in a rather different sense to that which has been quoted by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, although it must be remembered that this is not a party matter at all. It is not even a matter of doctors against the laity; it is not a matter of women as against men, because there are strong cross divisions in all groupings of individuals. When I said a Member on the other side of the House, it only happened that the hon. Member was sitting on the other side of the House. Let me quote from the Report of a Royal Commission in justification of the proposal we are putting forward. The Royal Commission said:
No system of notification of venereal disease should he put in force at the present time.
We do not propose to do it.
The application of compulsion to cases in which there is no sense of responsibility, where no restraint is thought of, and where contagion is in its most active and virulent form, can be defended on strong public grounds.
The Royal Commission appeared to think that the time was not ripe for this, and went on to say:
It is possible that the situation may be modified when these facilities have been in operation for some time, and the question of notification should then be further considered. It is also possible that, when the general public becomes alive to the grave dangers arising from venereal disease, notification in some form will be demanded. The measures which may be required in the future must depend on experience gained after the existing deficiencies have been remedied.
I maintain that the facilities are there, and that public opinion in Edinburgh, where it has been operating for some time, is undoubtedly in favour of carrying out some such proposal as the present. The views laid down by the Royal Commission have been fulfilled as far as Edinburgh is concerned, and if you take the Trevethin Report of 1923 they were of the opinion that any system of general compulsory notification of venereal disease would tend to concealment and would prove a backward step. We are not proposing this. They also said:
It may well be that in certain areas special measures for the prevention of venereal disease would be justifiable, for example, measures for dealing with defaulters. We think that local health authorities who are able to make … a special case for some such special measure should be allowed, at any rate for some limited period by way of experiment, to carry out the measures they propose.
That is what I find in these Reports. The hon. Member opposite found other things. Surely that is an argument for having the whole matter gone into in a more judicial atmosphere than in this House. The whole weight of opinion of local authorities in Scotland is behind this Bill. The Convention of Burghs in 1922 passed a resolution in favour of the compulsory notification of venereal disease, and at their most recent conference held on the 27th January, 1928, in Edinburgh, they passed the following resolution:
In the opinion of this conference the present law and machinery are inadequate to secure the proper control and treatment of venereal disease, and that it, is essential that further powers should be conferred on local authorities in the direction of compulsory measures to secure submission to treatment by all persons infected by a venereal disease and continuance under treatment until discharged.
The Scottish Board of Health, in 1922, said:
The Board are still of the opinion that the first step should he not notification of
cases of venereal disease but compulsion on persons knowing or having reason to suspect that they are suffering from these diseases to submit themselves for treatment, and having so submitted themselves, to continue under treatment until discharged by the medical officer in charge of the treatment. The Board have under consideration a draft Bill dealing with this question, that might be promoted when opportunity offers, and in regard to which they propose to invite the observations of the Convention of Royal Boroughs before any overt steps are taken.
The Scottish Board of Health did not produce the Bill, and the Edinburgh Corporation and its medical officers, who have led the way in this matter, felt that they could not wait any longer. In the Report of the Board of Health for 1926 this statement appears:
It is not surprising, therefore, that alike among local authorities who see so imperfectly utilised the treatment facilities for which they in the first instance are financially responsible, many clinicians should feel their time and skill are largely wasted, and among social workers and others, whose duties bring them into daily contact with children maimed through the uncured disease of their parents, there is a great growing demand for compulsory measures to secure submission to treatment by all persons affected with a venereal disease and continuance under treatment until discharged.
We have all these local authorities supporting this Measure. It is all very well to say that there was not a full attendance at the Edinburgh branch of the medical association, but you can be pretty sure that all those who took any interest in the matter were present, and they passed the resolution by a large majority. You have also the Edinburgh branch of the National Council of Women's Societies, the Edinburgh branch of the Women Citizens; the local branch, which includes not only Edinburgh but the south-eastern district as well, of the Scottish Co-operative Women's Guild, who wrote in the strongest terms in its support and said in a letter to me:
We implore you to support this Bill in the interests of the women and children.
These are working class women, and they see no distinction between the poor man and the rich man. The extraordinary thing is that all these societies have been more or less in touch with the work of the Edinburgh clinic, and they know how beneficent have been its effects. It is only when you get far away from Edinburgh, to places like London and Plymouth, that you find opposition to this Measure. I trust not to unenlightened
opinion but to the enlightened opinion of the City of Edinburgh, which has one of the greatest schools of medicine in the world. I trust to that opinion, and I think this House might trust it too. We have also the remarkable phenomenon of the whole Corporation of Edinburgh, with two dissentients on the ground of expense, in favour of the Measure. All the Members for the City of Edinburgh ask you for the Second Reading.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Not all.

Sir P. FORD: All the Tory and Socialist Members ask for a Second Reading, and the Liberal Member who sits for the Port of Leith (Mr. E. Brown) takes an opposite view. I am told that his wife has told him that he must speak against the Bill. My wife has told me to support it. As against the hon. Member for Leith Boroughs, I put the Liberal Lord Provost of Edinburgh and Baillie Allen, who has done a great deal of hard social work for the people of the district. I say this in order to show that there is no party question in it at all. We have Tories—if you like to call us so—and Socialists—if you like to call hon. Members opposite by that name—and also Liberals, who are just as true Liberals as the hon. Member for Leith, unanimously in favour of this Bill. The nearer they are to Edinburgh the more they are in favour of it. In view of that weight of opinion, I suggest that it is hardly fair that the people who have been operating successfully in the fight against this disastrous disease should be refused by the House of Commons, without the details of the matter having been gone into, the powers which they say they need, Technical differences will develop as the Debates go on, but I submit it is the duty of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that it may be sent to the Private Bill Committee where evidence can be led and the matter can be threshed out in a judicial manner.
If hon. Members think that by doing so, the House would be committing itself unconditionally to any principle in the Bill, I would refer them to Erskine May who points out that there is a difference in the case of Private Bills as regards the implication of a Second Reading. I have not the actual note here but I think it will be found that Erskine May points out that Private Bills are based upon local and other con-
ditions of which the House cannot be apprised, and, that therefore, it is right that such a Bill should be sent to a more or less judicial committee in order that the preamble of the Bill may be proved. The House is not prejudiced because it sends a Bill up for such an inquiry. It is perfectly free, after all the evidence has been threshed out, either to pass the Bill or not to pass it. But the House will take upon itself a grave responsibility if, in view of the strong feeling in favour of this Bill on the part of those most nearly associated with the Measure, and in view of the conflict of expert opinion it refuses to give it a Second Reading on this occasion. I trust to the good sense and the generosity of the House not to stand in the way of those who are making this fight to eliminate disease, and who have been doing it so successfully.

Dr. SALTER: In addition to the objections on principle which have been put forward by those who are opposed to the Bill, I desire to submit a further series of reasons based mainly on practical considerations why the House should reject this Measure. In the first place, I suggest that any law is a bad law if it offers practically unlimited opportunities for evasion and if it is unequal in its incidence on the community. It would he extremely easy for any person who wanted to do so to defeat the whole object and purpose of this Bill. It has already been pointed out that any recalcitrant can evade the operation of the Bill by moving into another district. Such a person can also evade the purpose of the Bill by giving a false name and address. I understand that in New South Wales, where a complete system of compulsion is already in operation, the Director General of Public Health has reported that it has only been possible to bring back to treatment 25 per cent. of the notified defaulters because of the number who gave false names and addresses. Any man or woman could submit to treatment voluntarily but could refuse to give any name or address. I understand it is the purpose of people in Edinburgh who are opposed to this Bill to induce each person who applies to the clinic in future to describe himself or herself as "X" of "X" street and to decline absolutely and emphatically to give any name other
than a pseudonym. Unless the promoters propose to introduce a Clause in Committee, making it obligatory on every applicant for treatment to give a correct name and address, the only way to put the Bill into operation will be to establish a new department of the city police and to have a corps of detectives following up every person who goes to the clinic for treatment.
As to the question of compulsory treatment, there are grave objections which up to now have not been answered. I understand that the main argument of the supporters of the Measure is on these lines. They say, "Here is a person who has been incompletely treated, who is not cured, and who is, therefore, infectious and a danger to others. On the ground that he may injure other persons and injure the community, he should be compelled to submit to treatment so that he may be rendered non-infectious." It is said that in the old days syphilis was known as "the great pox." Every sufferer from small-pox is compelled to go into an isolation hospital and receive treatment and it is argued that that if it is so with the small-pox, why not also with "the great pox" which is an even more terrible disease. I submit that that argument is fallacious. The facts are not as suggested by the supporters of the Bill because, in the first place, a man suffering from small-pox is isolated in hospital and is not compelled to receive any treatment at all. If he objects to treatment, whether it be drinking medicine or receiving inoculation, he can refuse to submit to it. He is merely kept in the hospital for a limited period but is not subject to treatment of any kind whatever. The Bill, however, does not propose to isolate people. On the argument which is put forward, it would be logical to say that if small-pox patients are isolated, then "great pox" patients should a fortiori be so isolated, but the supporters of the Bill do not propose anything of the kind. They merely propose that the person affected shall be compulsorily treated.
I wish to direct the attention of the House to that question of treatment. The method of treatment of the disease of syphilis is by the injection of certain highly toxic substances of the arsenobenzol group, popularly known as "606"—salvarsan or one of the later deriva-
tives. I believe, speaking as a medical man, that that method of treatment is effective. If I had the misfortune to become infected with one of these diseases in the ordinary course of my professional work, I should be most eager to avail myself of that treatment. But I should do it with my eyes open, knowing that I was accepting a very grave risk. I want the House to understand that death results from this treatment in a considerable number of cases every year in this country. Every few weeks the medical papers report cases of grave accident following the treatment, and a very terrible disease known as acute yellow atrophy of the liver follows not infrequently. Other great damage to health, as well as sudden death, following an injection are also reported from time to time; and I submit that it is an entirely new principle in British law that members of the public are to be compelled to take risks of this description. It is not a principle with which the medical profession as a whole has ever associated itself, and, I believe, does not associate itself at the present time.
Though I accept this modern method of treatment, from my own point of view, as being efficient, there are many doctors of high standing in the profession who do not regard it as any advance at all on the older method. There are a, great number who believe that the older method was just as effective in the long run as the newer method of treatment. Apparently, by the operation of this Bill one particular method of treatment, and that alone, is to be enforced, and if a patient declines that method, and demands treatment by the older method, he is not only to be refused it, but punished for demanding it. Again, I submit that it is an entirely new principle in British law.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman point out where that provision comes in the Bill?

Dr. SALTER: A patient is to submit to treatment which is prescribed by the medical officer.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does it say that in the Bill?

Dr. SALTER: Certainly; that is the implication of the Clause dealing with the subject. If it does not mean that, it
means nothing at all. It is true that the patient can apply to another medical man to give him treatment, but in the case of the poorer people the patient has practically no option. There is another very serious position which will arise if this Bill becomes law. At the present moment, if a patient voluntarily attends a centre for treatment, and happens to suffer injury, or is killed as a result of the treatment, no liability rests upon the doctor, or upon the institution, clinic, hospital, or authority which is supplying the treatment. The man has gone there of his own free will, the doctor has given the best of his skill and has not been negligent, but the man has unfortunately suffered injury or has died. The position, however, will be quite different under this Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell the House whether the whole position will not be revolutionised by the compulsory enforcement of a particular form of treatment, and whether it will not be the case that, if a man suffers injury or death as the result of treatment compulsorily applied, against his will, that man will not have an action for damages, either against the doctor who gave the treatment, or against the authority or institution of which the doctor was an official. That seems to alter the whole aspect of the position.
Finally, I suggest that this method proposed in the Bill is entirely unnecessary. The Corporation of Edinburgh have published figures in which they themselves show that the percentage of defaulters has been reduced from 44 to 29, but the Medical Committee of this House had the opportunity and advantage of meeting a number of officials of the Edinburgh Corporation in a Committee room upstairs, and they supplied us with another series of figures. We were then told that in 1922 the percentage of defaulters of all cases who presented themselves for treatment was 18; in 1923, 15; in 1924, 12; in 1925 it was 13; in 1926 it was 72; and I am subsequently told that in 1927 it was 11. That would seem to show that the present voluntary method is distinctly effective, in spite of the fact that, as I am told, the Edinburgh Corporation have only one official who acts as a follower—up of these defaulting cases. There you have, even with a relatively inefficient method of following-up the recalcitrants, and a relatively insufficient number of
persons doing the work of inducing defaulters to reapply for treatment, a progressive fall in the number of defaulters, a diminishing number of persons who fail to apply for treatment. I submit that, before introducing such drastic proposals as this, further methods on voluntary lines, with more effective medical persuasion and an increased number of followers-up, should be undertaken. If that were done, there is every prospect that the number of recalcitrants, with the exception of an extremely small minority, will be abolished altogether.
This experiment of compulsion has been made in a great many countries in the world, but not in Great Britain and Holland hitherto. The interesting thing is that, as far as the published evidence is available, the number of persons, who have been described in this House to night at defaulters, is smaller in Great Britain and in Holland, the two places where the voluntary system is in operation, than anywhere else. That is a remarkable fact in itself. I am also informed that in Holland the chief director of the Polyclinic at Amsterdam has stated that, with the following-up system, 95 per cent. of syphilitic men and 85 per cent. of women have remained continuously under treatment during the two years that this system has been in operation, and that these figures cannot be surpassed by those published in any country where compulsory treatment has been in force. If Holland can achieve such success as that without any evidence of compulsion, there seems every reason for hoping and believing that in this country, with improved methods, we shall have equal success.
Finally, I would submit that it is a very serious thing that a person, who cannot be proved to be dangerous to other persons, is to be compulsorily treated or punished. Many of those persons who have been for treatment, and failed to continue to attend, are in some cases infectious, but in many cases they are not infectious; there is no evidence that they are, and no evidence whatever can be produced that they are. When there is no proof that people are infectious or dangerous to others, it is an extremely serious thing to say that they shall be punished if they refuse to continue treatment. The Bill does not take any steps to prevent people who are infectious from continuing to infect other
people, and a man suffering from venereal disease who is attending one of these clinics regularly may be infectious, may remain infectious for many months and may go on spreading infection amongst the general population. The 13i11 does not propose to deal with that situation; but it proposes to deal with another man who may not be infectious at all, but has simply defaulted in his treatment, has not followed up his treatment for as long as the medical officer thinks he ought to have done. It seems to me that unequal incidence of that sort is a serious thing and ought not to be tolerated.

Sir BASIL PETO: Would the hon. Member support a Bill for segregating people who are suffering from venereal disease until they are certified cured?

Dr. SALTER: No, I would not support it, because I believe it would he ineffectual.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) support a Bill in that case?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Dr. SALTER: I would not support such a Bill, because I believe that, like this Bill, it would be ineffectual sand would make the position worse. As was said by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill, I believe this Measure would simply drive the disease underground. Many persons who would now be inclined to attend a clinic will hesitate very seriously before they present themselves if they know that they are to be treated as potential criminals for failing to keep up their attendances. Therefore, I believe this Bill is going to increase the amount of venereal disease, or, at any rate, there is a risk that it may increase it; there is no evidence that it is likely to diminish it; and therefore I hope that the House will reject it. The provisions of the Bill can be easily evaded. Any provision of this sort is quite useless unless it is universal. If the Measure is to apply to a limited area, it will be hopelessly inadequate. I submit to the House that if compulsion of this sort is to be attempted it must be universal, and before any such drastic provision is introduced into British law the most
exhaustive overhauling of the case in its national aspect should be undertaken by a Royal Commission.

9 p.m.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am rather surprised that a better case against this Bill has not so far been made out. The Mover of the rejection spoke of the defence of the Edinburgh Corporation. It is not Edinburgh Corporation which is on its defence, but those who are opposing this Bill. [Interruption.] The Bill is designed to fill a gap in the operation of the Infectious Diseases Acts, under which we have had compulsory powers since 1889. The reasons why these particular diseases have not been brought under those Acts are various. Up to comparatively recent years their seriousness was not understood, and their responsibility for the disastrous after-effects which they produce was not realised. Then, again, the specific causes were not known, and there was no certainty of a cure. For these reasons, venereal diseases have not come under the Infectious Diseases Acts. There is, however, high medical and legal authority for believing that they could come under the operation of those Acts, and certain parts of this Bill are identical with the provisions of the Infectious Diseases Acts. It has been pointed out that these diseases differ from the ordinary infectious diseases in that ordinary infectious diseases run a definite course and, if the patient recovers, the disease is cured and infectivity is stopped, whereas, with venereal disease, except in a few cases, no institutional treatment is required; the treatment may be prolonged to as much as two years, and the patient is able during the course of treatment to carry on his ordinary employment. Therefore, it is necessary to modify somewhat the procedure of the Infectious Diseases Acts, and that is the reason why this Bill is introduced. It is rather a curious thing to find so many hon. Members demanding preferential treatment for those suffering from venereal diseases while perfectly willing to continue to deny to the victims of other contagious diseases the liberty and freedom of which they are at present deprived, often at very great inconvenience to themselves. As has been pointed out, the Royal Commission visualised a time when compulsory
methods might be necessary. It was quite impossible for the Royal Commission to recommend compulsory methods in 1916. There were no treatment centres, and comparatively few doctors were familiar with the modern technique; but the Royal Commission very definitely envisaged a time when compulsion might be applied. The Trevethin Committee—of which I am not going to speak, as we have present a distinguished member of it who will, I hope, be able to speak later—also very definitely outlined something like the experiment which is proposed in this Bill.
I do not think it is necessary to waste any time in speaking about the liberty of the subject. There has been no liberty for the subject to spread disease in Scotland since 1889. At that time a cry was raised, very similar to the cry which has gone up in connection with this Bill, about interference with liberty, and so on. That cry has long since died out and if we were to pay heed to that cry to-day we should need to destroy a very large amount of our public health legislation. Nowadays, compulsory measures in connection with ordinary contagious diseases are carried out without any difficulty and with no real compulsion whatsoever. There is only one serious argument against this Bill, and that is that it will hamper voluntary treatment and drive the disease underground. That is a serious and a sensible argument, and one which we have to meet. What surprises me is that the people who are most certain and most dogmatic on this question are people who are either only theorists or people who have had no personal association with the treatment of these diseases. We find that the venereal diseases officers and medical officers of health and members of public health committees take another view.

Dr. SALTER: Certainly not.

Dr. SHIELS: I was going to say in Scotland.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Certainly not.

Dr. SHIELS: I am entitled to state my own opinion, and I have good evidence for what I have said. I am not aware that any venereal diseases officer or any medical officer of health in Scotland has suggested that the introduction of the proposals contained in this Bill
would do any harm to the operation of the voluntary system. That system will continue. The Mover of the rejection of this Bill suggested that the two things were not compatible. We believe, however, that the voluntary system can go on perfectly well and can be supplemented by the compulsory parts of this Bill, as they will only be used for a small number of people. I might, in passing, speak about the criticisms relating to the terrible risk to the patient which the hon. Member for the London University (Dr. Little) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) have referred to. May I point, out that what those two hon. Members referred to was the condition of things ten years ago, and that these statements are not true to-day. As a matter of fact, there has been only one death following injection in Edinburgh since 1917. The other conditions might arise, and certainly in the early years of this treatment, they did arise, but the cases are now few and far between.

Dr. SALTER: It has been stated in the medical Press recently that over 30 cases of death under these circumstances have occurred.

Dr. SHIELS: I am speaking of experience in Scotland, and I know that what I have stated is the state of affairs there and, doubtless, it is the same else-were. Sometimes we hear of people suddenly dying when they are having teeth drawn or in hospitals while undergoing an operation, but we are not going on that account to say that people should not have teeth drawn or that operations should not take place. The treatment has now become so safe that a public authority is perfectly justified in using the methods proposed in this Bill. After all, hon. Members who are medical men know perfectly well that if there is potential danger in this treatment, there is an absolute certainty of grave danger awaiting these people if they are not treated.
The opponents of this Bill have very generously admitted the success of the Edinburgh centre, and have agreed that Edinburgh has probably the smallest percentage of defaulters of any part of the country. I am sorry to appear to be boosting Edinburgh so much, because like other Edinburgh men, I am naturally modest, and it, hurts me very much to do it; but I speak solely in the interests of
truth. Everything in Edinburgh has been done to make the system a success. A statement was made that in Edinburgh there was only one almoner. This almoner is a woman, and she is only sent to cases of women. It is considered by the Edinburgh authorities that the pledge of secrecy and confidentiality cannot easily be carried out if a man was sent under the circumstances in which most of these men are placed. They have to be seen at home, and it is entirely in the interests of the success of the voluntary system that the procedure in regard to visitation has been taken. Considerable success has been achieved, and yet it is the fact that, with all the admitted efficiency of the Edinburgh Centres, there still remain 800 to 1,000 cases a year of defaulters, many of them in an infective condition. Besides these cases, there are also an uncertain number who do not come for treatment at all.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the only cases which are followed up are women?

Dr. SHIELS: The men are also very carefully followed up, but they are followed up by letter.

Viscountess ASTOR: Then the only people who are followed are the women. I think that is a most important point.

Dr. SHIELS: The Noble Lady must accept my statement that every effort is made to follow up the cases of the men by a confidential letter, and, if necessary, by calls in suitable circumstances. I was pointing out that there is a much greater difficulty in the case of visiting the men than in the case of the women, but the Noble Lady can be assured that those who understand this matter are satisfied that Edinburgh has done full justice to the voluntary system. In spite of that, we have many people who are careless as to the danger to themselves and the danger to other people and they refuse to accept treatment. These people form a very effective bar to the ultimate success of the treatment of venereal diseases in Scotland. What is the ultimate object of all this treatment of venereal diseases? Are the old methods to go on perpetually and are we to go on indefinitely with a system which is very like pouring water into a sieve? Last year we spent over £20,000 on the treatment of this disease in Edin-
burgh. The estimates of the Board of Health for the treatment of this disease in Scotland show that £62,000 will be required next year. That is only three-fourths of the amount, because the local authorities have to make a contribution which raises the total to over £87,000. It is an interesting fact that this is £4,000 more than last year, which does not suggest that the purely voluntary system has been successful in reducing venereal disease in Scotland. In the whole of Britain we are spending over £300,000 in dealing with this disease, and we are doing that to provide free treatment and skilled specialists with a view to stamping out the disease—we are doing it as a part of preventive medicine.
Doctors are sometimes criticised in this House, and I am not going to say that they do not sometimes deserve it, but I think it will be admitted at any rate that doctors have before them the aim of preventing disease, in the treatment of which they earn their living. The doctor's ideal is preventive medicine, and he is looking forward to a time when he will not be curing disease, but, instead, will be keeping people well; and I can assure the House that, although it might be thought that it was a matter of indifference to the clinic doctor, he finds it a very depressing thing to discover that much of his treatment is of little effect because of the carelessness and indifference of a certain section of the population.
The expense that I have mentioned is not all. Our general hospitals, our Poor Law hospitals, our asylums, our prisons, are very largely filled with the end-products of this disease, though these in many cases are recorded under the names of different conditions. You may have a development of valvular disease of the heart, seriously incapacitating and painful to witness; you have arterial and nervous diseases, often paralysing in their effects. Insanity and blindness also may follow the neglect of these conditions. The expert of the Ministry of Health on this subject, at the recent Imperial Conference at Wembley, estimated that the treatment of venereal disease at the present time saved £50,000 a year in asylum expenses, and, if treatment can do that on only one aspect of the end-results of this disease, what would entire prevention achieve,
even in economy? We believe that compulsion and early treatment of these residual cases would result in the prevention of many of those later developments, and that would release a large number of very much needed beds in our ordinary hospitals.
"But," say our opponents, "you have done very well. Why are you not satisfied I Why not carry on? You have brought down the figures very well; why should not you continue the system?" Because the promoters of this Bill are satisfied that there is a residue, after everything has been done, which cannot be touched by the voluntary system at all. It is said that the disease will be driven underground, and that people will go to quacks. I have spoken of the keenness of the medical officers of health and of the venereal disease officers to get rid of this disease altogether, and I say that when they, with their special knowledge, say that these compulsory measures will not have that effect, their opinion is entitled to very great respect. It is said that the moral stigma in connection with this disease frightens people away, and that it will prevent them from attending. I do not claim to be an expert in this subject, but I have had the advantage of working for a considerable time in this department in Edinburgh and also of keeping in touch with the department since that time; and my experience, and it is confirmed by all clinical officers, is that the great bulk of these people are keen to get well, they are eager to get better; 90 out of every 100 give no trouble at all, and under the new provisions these people will not be affected by the knowledge that compulsion may be used on others of a different mentality.
The people who default, and whom we are trying to get at, are not affected by moral consideration or by the voluntary nature of the voluntary nature of the system; they are not frightened away because of any moral stigma, or because of the effect of public opinion. They do not come to the clinics either because they are weak minded, or frivolous, or utterly careless and irresponsible. My opinion is that, if there is any effect on the voluntary attendance, it will be a good effect. At the present time one of the disadvantages in the treatment of venereal disease is that the public do not
sufficiently realise the seriousness of it, and the fact that there are no compulsory powers in connection with it, while there are compulsory powers in connection with a great many other diseases, impresses on the public mind the idea that venereal diseases are not such a serious matter. There is no doubt that compulsory powers would awaken the public mind to their seriousness, and would, I am quite sure, intensify and increase the attendance of the purely voluntary comers at these clinics. With regard to treatment by quacks, it is quite well known that since 1917 it has been illegal and a serious offence for any unqualified person to treat venereal disease. Therefore, I submit that this fear of interference with the voluntary system has no basis in fact or experience to support it, and there is, at the worst, so slight a danger as not to stand in the way of this important experiment being carried out, especially at the hands of those who have carried out the voluntary system so conscientiously and so successfully.
I have been rather surprised at the action of some of the women's associations, and I would say in this connection that those women's associations in Edinburgh which have opposed this Bill are small associations, whereas those which have supported it have been large associations, although they may not have been quite so vocal. I have been surprised at the unscrupulous use which has been made of the memory, which we all revere, of Josephine Butler, and the comparison of this Bill with the Contagious Diseases Acts of the middle of the last century. Those Acts applied only to naval and military towns. They were directed only against prostitutes, and were carried out by the naval and military authorities. To say that this Bill, promoted and to be worked by the democratically elected Town Council of Edinburgh, is analogous to those Measures, is an insult to the citizens of Edinburgh, and also to the intelligence of the Members of this House. As a matter of fact, in these modern days, prostitutes do not form a large percentage of the patients. If they become infected, they are only too eager, for obvious reasons, to get cured, and there would seldom be any necessity for compulsion in their case.
The thing that surprises me is to find some women's societies against this Bill, when this disease means so very much to women. When we have cases of men who are infected by this disease, married men who have got infection outside, who refuse to be treated, and who yet demand the right to have marital intercourse and infect their wives, in spite of the wives' protestations, I ask, is that equal citizenship? We had in Edinburgh recently nine cases of married men, and the doctor pointed out, after hearing their history, that it was almost certain that all their wives would be infected; and he asked permission to see the wives and to get them treated. Six of the men gave permission, but the other three refused permission, and, under the present arrangements, there was no authority and no power to do anything for those three women. Is that equal citizenship? I am certain that many of these well-meaning women who are against this Bill, if they really saw the cases and understood the circumstances, would be turned round into most ardent supporters of the Bill.

Mr. STEWART: Could they not come forward voluntarily?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, but the women are not aware that they are infected. I think it is very desirable that the House should realise the sort of material we are dealing with, and the cases which have justified the proposals in the Bill. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I think a few cases will be worth giving. Here is a case of a male patient, single, treated for three weeks for syphilis and defaulted. Married one year later, infected his wife, who had two miscarriages and subsequently two children who survived, but were found to be infected with syphilis. In addition other members of the same household, aged 12 and 14, were innocently infected with syphilis on the lips. Four years later this man had an abscess of the brain and paralysis due to syphilis. Power to compel this individual, in the first instance, to complete his treatment would have prevented the infection of his wife, the miscarriages, the inherited syphilis in his two surviving children, the acquired syphilis in two children in the same household, and his own death.
Here is another case: Female, aged 36, seen at hospital and delivered of a stillborn child due to syphilis. Advised to attend for treatment and repeatedly implored to do so and bring her family. Two years later reported with child, aged 5, suffering from loss of sight due to syphilis. Mother at that time seven and a half months pregnant; child subsequently born suffered from syphilis. Mother now states she wishes she had been compelled in the first instance to attend for treatment. The eldest child's sight would undoubtedly have been saved and both saved from suffering from syphilis. Another case is that of a child, six days old, brought to hospital suffering from ophthalmia neonatorum, which leads to blindness. Father and mother found to be infected. Both refused to continue treatment, although both told they had syphilis and gonorrhœa. Child died. Eighteen months later the same mother reported to hospital with another child, suffering from syphilis, which also died. Father and mother have consistently refused to be treated and are both of child-producing age. The second child could certainly have been saved if father and mother had been treated.
It seems to me, also, that these women societies might very seriously consider the case of the children. It is the cases of innocent children which have moved very many of us in the matter. In the Edinburgh centre there are between 200 and 300 children attending, and to me they are one of the most pathetic sights I know. They have a Christmas party where they all assemble, and it is very tragic to see children who should have been born healthy who have been condemned to suffer the stigma of this disease. Is that to go on?
I would like to say one word about this matter of class distinction. This Bill does not abolish class distinctions. That is not its purpose, but it does not create any new ones, and, in my opinion, the poorer section of the community will benefit most from the Bill, because the poor people suffer more from most diseases than the rich. When you have bad housing, overcrowding, poverty, ignorance of hygiene and lack of facilities for its exercise, you inevitably have an increase of contagious diseases and venereal diseases are no exception to the rule. As a matter of fact, all types of people attend these clinics and people
of all social grades. There have never been any class distinctions, and there will not be in the future.
Another argument I would like to meet is the question of the treatment in other countries which has been brought forward by our opponents. It must be remembered that compulsory methods in Europe have only been against prostitutes and have no reference to the system suggested in this Bill. In Germany, however, which has always been a progressive country in public health, a few weeks ago a system was introduced there on very similar lines to this Bill. If we take our Dominions, we find that in Canada in some towns, in Toronto for instance, there is a similar system working. In Toronto less than 2 per cent. of prosecutions are required to make their system effective. Then Australia has been a good deal mentioned. I have some knowledge of Australia and of the condition of things there. I had the privilege of looking into this question in all the States of Australia and of a special interview with the director of Federal medical services in Melbourne in regard to this matter. They are perfectly satisfied with the system there. They have had two Royal Commissions, and they consider the compulsory powers are of very great value. Comparison of defaulting figures is not very useful in view of the scattered nature of the country and the difficulty in many areas of securing treatment. It is however a significant thing that there has never been any demand for doing away with the system. The Royal Commissions have reported that the system has not been a failure and that where the administration has been effectively carried out it has been successful. There is one quotation I should like to read from the Commissioner of Health for Western Australia. He says:
V.D. clinics are well attended, and literally hundreds of patients have been returned for treatment chiefly by persuasion, who without the Act with its compulsory powers would have remained partially treated and so sources of infection. … Such prosecutions as there have been have been almost entirely against, men. Very few women have been brought up, and such as have been have had plenty of warning and have been knowing and deliberate offenders. …
I think it will be conceded by all fair-minded people that the Act is certainly doing good, and it is a well-known fact that
although there is a Vigilance Committee in this State, which has asked anyone who considers himself or herself wronged by the administration of the Act to report themselves and their cases will be inquired into, no such case has been brought forward since the Act came into operation in 1916.
There is one last point, as to the criticism that this is a local Act and not a general Act. I understand that this is said to be the reason for the opposition of the Government to this Measure. The Board of Health has more than once in its Report spoken of the necessity for compulsory measures. The English Ministry of Health, however, has always seemed to have had a curious prejudice against any legislation on this subject. They opposed the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) for carrying out another of the recommendations of the Trevethin Committee and they also put in Reports against the Bradford Bill and the Liverpool Bill, and now they have opposed this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is, I understand, very gallantly drawing the fire of the enemy to-night and appearing as the villain of the piece, but this time we will not accept him in that role. It seems strange that a united Scotland, with all its local authorities behind this Bill, should be prevented by an English Ministry of Health from making an important experiment and a try out in public health in connection with this important disease. Some people might even suggest it as an argument for Home Rule for Scotland. There is nothing in the private Bill argument at all, because it is perfectly well known that very much of our general public health registration has been built up by local experiment. Even the Act of 1889, the Infectious Diseases Act, was in operation in Edinburgh for 10 years before it was made a general Act. The same is the case in connection with the compulsory notification of tuberculosis, which was in existence in many towns before it became a general Act. This Bill is supported, as has been pointed out, by the vast, majority of the citizens of Edinburgh, by the democratically elected town council, and by every Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, except the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who very courageously opposes the Bill. I would point out, however, in extenuation, that he is an Englishman and has
only recently come amongst us, and I have no doubt that when he has been a little longer with us he will have developed the progressive spirit of the other Edinburgh Members on this subject. In conclusion, may I say that I believe that those who oppose this Bill are undertaking a very grave responsibility, and I hope that the Members of this House will show themselves enlightened seekers after public health and at least permit Edinburgh to prove its case upstairs by giving a Second Reading to this Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) has made a direct reference to myself as the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, and I am not in the least afraid of standing fire on this or any other occasion. But I approach this subject with a measure of responsibility, since I am the Minister responsible for the Department of Health in Scotland. I approach it also without the technical knowledge revealed in the speeches of a number of doctors who are hon. Members of this House, and I approach it with a feeling that it is a problem which deserves the closest consideration of all the citizens of the country and of the Members of this House. I regret that I shall have to advise the House, quite plainly and quite emphatically, to reject this Measure. I do so after very careful consideration with my advisers, and, while reference has been made to letters and communications made by the Board of Health at certain times on this problem, and to the possibility or the necessity arising of using compulsion in dealing with this matter, I would remind hon. Members and those who are supporting this Bill that any such communications were made prior to and not after the issue of the most recently considered reports upon this problem.
We have heard arguments used on both sides, in support of and against this Measure, and I think the House will agree that one thing is clear, and that is that this is a scourge which affects the health of our community, and that it is essential to make as great progress towards the elimination of that scourge as it is possible to do; but I wish to submit to the House that in this problem,
as indeed in many others, the measure of progress, at any rate among our people, must always be in proportion to and not in advance of the volume of public opinion which can support it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in No. 144 of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission the Board of Health was especially recommended to leave it to the larger local authorities to deal with this question by themselves?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not conversant with the actual point to which the hon. Member refers. I am not saying that one does not have a great deal of confidence in the ability and skill and foresight of many of our great local authorities, and I want to say at once that I recognise, as indeed my Board of Health recognises, the skill with which the Edinburgh Corporation, and many others throughout Scotland, have endeavoured to deal with this problem. But I come back to this, that while one quite realises the intense anxiety of those who are responsible for dealing with this disease to make more rapid progress, and while one realises, in cases such as hon. Members have quoted of infection of children deliberately done, the aroused indignation, and the rightly aroused indignation, of those who have to deal with this problem, that does not remove this difficulty, and I ask the House to consider for themselves: Is it quite certain that if you did have compulsion, you would any more readily deal with these very cases than now? Having read the Report of the Trevethin Committee, I find that they say, for instance:
It has been suggested by some that in order to secure unbroken attendance of patients at clinics, a modified form of notification supported by appropriate compulsory measures should be applied to those who have once attended the clinics. … but in our view such a system would be more likely at the present time to deter than encourage attendance, and it seems difficult to justify the imposition of a penalty on those who have come for treatment while leaving untouched those who have made no effort to seek treatment.
I submit that that is a condition which this Bill would propose to carry out, and it is on those grounds that I am compelled to say to the House that I do not think that they would be wise to proceed.

Sir B. PETO: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say that this Bill deals only with those attending clinics and leaves out all those who do not attend clinics?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As it seems to me, unless you have compulsory notification in conjunction with it, obviously that must be the result. I am told that there is unanimity in Scotland upon this subject, but let me point out to Members of this House that, while Edinburgh comes making certain proposals, as she does to-night, upon certain lines, the great Corporation of Glasgow is coming and making proposals upon different lines. Therefore, there is no uniform opinion yet among those who are most closely concerned with the method of dealing with this problem.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will you support the Glasgow Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: "Sufficient is the evil"—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sorry. I do not propose to take up the time of the House at great length, but I would say to the House, in all seriousness, that under the voluntary system admittedly we have made great progress. I do not feel convinced, nor do my advisers, that the possibilities of education and of voluntary teaching and, if you like, the pressure of public opinion, have been fully exhausted. In these circumstances, I suggest that the House would have to think very carefully indeed before making an experiment which is admittedly one with very far-reaching consequences, and one which, whatever we may say and claim, if it were made in this or that area, is bound to have its effect on areas far outside that in which it is made; an experiment which, if it fail or partially fail, is bound to have reactions which many of us cannot foresee. In these circumstances, while I regret having to express an opinion which is contrary to the aspirations, hopes and the genuine anxieties of a great corporation working, as I know and believe, for the betterment of the health of the people, I am bound to ask the House to reject this Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I hope I may be allowed a few minutes to express a view that will assimilate itself to the view of some of my profession while bitterly opposed to that of others who have spoken this evening. We happen to have been affording the House to-day one of those delightful opportunities of seeing the medical profession divided, and we are divided all the more because of our honesty and genuineness of determination to tackle evil questions. But there are certain definite grounds that we have in common. In the first place, we have in common a realisation of the intense seriousness of the position that we are trying to treat. I do not think it is sufficiently known by the public how serious is the position. I shall not enlarge upon it, but I would remind the House, and through the House possibly the public, of the conclusion of the Royal Commission in 1916, that no fewer than one person in ten of the whole population of our large cities was infected with syphilis. That is one of the great killing diseases. More so, gonorrhœa is equally prevalent or more prevalent, and that is one of the great crippling diseases. I hope that a great deal of the feeling that has been aroused about the Bill will at any rate be excused when people realise what we are up against.
There is one note of criticism which is rather irrelevant, even as raised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is suggested that the number of defaulters is being reduced by the voluntary system. It is true that the number of defaulters has been reduced, and I hope it will still continue to be reduced. But leave aside the statistics. I ask any impartial man or woman of the world whether, knowing what men and women are, knowing the conditions under which at least a certain enormous proportion of the population is infected, do they imagine that any system of voluntary treatment is going to clear the slate or secure the treatment of those who are recalcitrant? Of course not. There must be always a large proportion who will refuse treatment under any conditions. That must be common ground. I am sure that it is common ground among medical men, even among those who have spoken against this Bill. I cannot imagine the Noble Lady, the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor), who is against the Bill, refusing assent to that proposition, There
is a large residue of people who will refuse treatment unless it is known sooner or later that it will become compulsory. The Government in the pronouncement that we have just heard, and those who are opposed to the Bill, are quite content that nothing should be done for these people.

HON. MEMBERS: Not at all; certainly not.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: These people will refuse voluntary treatment. They are careless. They will go once or twice for treatment and then break off. They cannot be got at by voluntary measures. I could enlarge on that point by cases right and left. You can do a very large amount of work by voluntary measures. The medical profession and everyone who has to deal with public health are unanimous that the main basis of the treatment of the disease, and still more the measures of prevention, must be a voluntary system. There is no question of trying to get over that. That is why all statistics from other countries are incomparable—because we intend to keep the voluntary system under this Bill. The question is, can you clear up the dregs and the recalcitrants at the bottom?
I must bring the House back to the actual system as I have seen it working in Edinburgh. There has been a surprising advance made by the voluntary system in the course of only 10 years. Whereas 10 years ago it was almost taboo to mention these subjects, and it was difficult to get anyone to appear anywhere for treatment of this disease, now you see the cases coming up and pouring in, sitting side by side in the general clinic and anxious to continue their treatment. Why? Because they know its effect. Why? Because they know that confidence will be respected, that the secrecy is as absolute as it can be made. It cannot be absolute secrecy, because they are sitting side by side in the waiting hall of the public clinic. They give their names and addresses, and this has to be done in order that their treatment may be continued and that a record may be produced if they lapse for a time and then come back. That record is absolutely confidential and there is one medical officer who is responsible for keeping the record under lock and key. What happens? The medical officer knows that certain people
continue treatment and others refuse it. At present the ones who refuse, after a short space of time infect people right and left. It is often found that the wives and children who come in are all infected. The doctor knows that the man is continuing to spread the infection, and at the present time he can do nothing to compel that man to continue his treatment. The man's wife can do nothing, although she is being infected, to prevent more infected children being bred. The Secretary of State says, "We do nothing in that case." The Edinburgh Corporation say, "We want to deal with that case." That is the ease for the Bill.
I want to say something as to the objection that secrecy is to be broken. What will actually happen is this: the medical officer for the most part has information through the cases or their friends and relations that come for treatment. He is not going to spoil his system by breaking the secrecy. What does he do? He writes privately to the man concerned. He does that now. In many cases he is unable to get the man concerned to come for treatment. But there are a certain number of cases which will not come under this system. He writes to them a letter and says, "Please come for treatment." If they do not come, he is then enabled by this Bill to say, "You must forward to me a certificate that you are being treated." It is not compulsory for him to come to the clinic even if he is a poor man. There are poor men's doctors to whom he can go, and he can get a certificate from them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What do you mean by poor men's doctors?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) said, that treatment given by the poor men's doctors very often is not the best treatment.

Dr. SALTER: I disclaim that I made any such statement in the House at all.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. Gentleman said that the treatment given by the private practitioners very often would not be the best treatment.

Dr. SALTER: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is confusing my speech with that of somebody else. I did not make any suggestion of that sort at all.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Very well, we will leave that. This Bill is not intended to be comprehensive, but is a Bill simply to get a certain move forward. It will give a certain move forward. What is the effect on those people who know that they ought to go for treatment when they receive a letter from the medical officer? There is the menace of compulsion behind it.

Dr. SALTER: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will answer the question which I put in my speech, namely, what is going to happen if the applicants for treatment universally refuse, or in large measure refuse, to give either their names or addresses, as they are entitled to do?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: If that did happen they would not be treated. They would be the worse, and it would be a universal failure. But that will not happen. The success of this Bill depends on administration and personal contact, and it is because these medical officers who deal with this subject know how to get at the people by wise means that it will be a success. The measure of compulsion is only kept in the background. It is actually the same in dealing with infectious diseases at the present time. Practically no one refuses to be taken to an isolation hospital, but there is the power of compulsion behind.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said "these medical officers." Suppose you gave this power to other medical officers, would it not be a pretty strong lever in the hands of any medical officers?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I think it is perfectly true that this experiment is asked for by one corporation and by one set of medical officers, and it is because we believe that they have met with great success in this treatment and can be trusted that I support this Bill as an experiment. I quite agree that other proposals with regard to other authorities would equally have to be considered on the merits of the particular localities. I will simply conclude by saying that the Trevethin Committee, of which I happen to be the only member in this House, in making their report made the very definite reservations which have already been referred to this evening. We have
to recognise that these reservations in the Trevethin Report are very serious and must affect our judgment. Notwithstanding the points which the Secretary of State quoted, notwithstanding the fact that they were at that time opposed to compulsory notification, notwithstanding what we have heard by way of information, it may well be that in certain areas certain measures would be justifiable in dealing especially with defaulters. In this way the report says, they may ultimately be able, by a body of experience of great value, to determine future policy. Anybody who has been through this problem as we went through it on the Trevethin Committee will realise how intensely serious is the proportion of recalcitrants and defaulters. Nobody can say that a corporation such as the Corporation of Edinburgh, who are fully conversant with the difficulties and dangers, and who are responsible to the people at the next election for what they do, are not the ideal body for making one of these experiments on which alone we can build up a system of general administration.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: As my name has been referred to twice in this Debate, I desire to say a word or two, not on the general question, but upon the facts with regard to Edinburgh as I see them. It is perfectly true that I have the misfortune of only having been in Leith for a year, but time, I hope, will remedy that as the years go on. When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) tried to raise the issue that I was an Englishman opposing the Bill he forgot that among the four other Members for Edinburgh who are supporting the Bill there is also one Englishman, so that that issue does not arise. I deny entirely from my observation during the municipal elections of last November and since I was asked to put my name to the original Bill, which, unfortunately, I had to refuse, that there is a unanimous public opinion in Edinburgh in favour of this Measure at all. I deny further, that any single Member for Edinburgh has the right in this House to speak for his own constituency on this point. I have no right to say that the electors of Leith are either for or against this Measure. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) has no right to say that the electors of North
Edinburgh are for or against this Measure. My reason for saying that is, that this issue has never been put to the electors in Edinburgh. Neither at a General Election, nor at a by-election in Leith, nor at the municipal elections last November was one single reference made in the public Press—and I think I read every column—to this problem. Therefore, although the Corporation are entitled to vote as they wish and to bear the penalty of getting the reward afterwards if their action is approved or disapproved by the electors, they have no right to say that the citizens of Edinburgh demand this Bill. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh has no right whatever to stand up in this House and say that he speaks for a united Edinburgh or a united Scotland.
The course of this Debate will have shown the Members of this House the kind of public opinion that has been aroused in Edinburgh in favour of this Bill. There has been no discussion of the merits of the Bill by the supporters of the Bill. The whole of the argument has been based on defaulters. This Bill does not merely deal with defaulters. It is not a Bill with which Edinburgh alone is concerned. It is a Bill which raises the whole issue as between the defaulters behind voluntaryism, honesty, faith and moral forces, and legal and medical compulsion. That is the issue which is raised in this Bill. It is obvious that the Edinburgh Corportation realised that there is very great opposition to the Bill in Edinburgh, because before the Second Reading of the Bill has been taken they have already proposed to cut out two of the most drastic of the original proposals.
Let me remind the House what the original proposals were. The first was, that if a medical officer of health has reason to suspect that a person suffers from this disease the person may be notified to attend for treatment. "Any person," not the defaulters, not the persons now attending the clinic, but any person the medical officer has reason to suspect. Secondly, in Clause 3, they ask for powers of arrest, powers of detention, not merely for defaulters but for others, and powers of examination of parents whose children may be found to be suffering from the disease. The issue
—I say it without fear of contradiction—has never been discussed in public in Edinburgh by those who support the Bill. When the original decision was taken to proceed with this Bill there was no public report of the debate in Edinburgh. When the second decision was taken after it had been announced that the Government were opposing the Bill there was a public report of the debate but not a report on the merits of the Bill. The, examination of the Bill was made in private, and there was no public report. Almost the whole of the public report that I saw dealt with the issue raised by the supposed intervention of the English Ministry of Health, and the thing was discussed, not on the merits of the Bill but on the question of Home Rule or otherwise for Scotland. This is not a Bill that ought to be proceeded with by the Private Bill Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), realising that there is much to be said both ways and that there is a great division of opinion in Edinburgh about the Bill, will not attempt to justify its merits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I have not spoken in Edinburgh about it, because I hoped until the last minute, when the Government said they were against it, the Corporation would withdraw it, but I propose, and my wife also proposes, to speak against the Bill in Edinburgh, and we will do it in Leith too, and we will go to some of the private places where they have been and put the other side of the case.
When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh talks about public opinion he means private opinion, and private meetings not publicly reported where he and his friends have gone to say what they like about the case for the treatment of the disease, for cleaning the city, and for the care of children, ideals that are common to all of us. There is in Edinburgh a great body of public opinion, not merely fanatical public opinion, not merely theoretical, but of practical people against the Bill. I will read one letter from my correspondence. It is from the Edinburgh Home for mothers and infants, and I am sure the hon. Member for East Edinburgh will not call the lady who superintends that home and has to deal with one dead end of the problem a theorist:
Dear Sir,
As a voter in your constituency and one whose work draws me into close contact with the problem, I write to say it was with great satisfaction that I learned to-day that you are opposed to the Edinburgh Corporation Bill for compulsory powers for the treatment of venereal disease. From my experience I feel strongly that compulsory treatment is not the best way of dealing with this disease, and that it is most important that the success of the voluntary scheme should not be endangered.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh will doubtless say, "Let the House send this to a Committee, and then let us deal with it in private." This is the last kind of Measure that ought to go to a Private Bill Committee. This is a Private Bill and it will not go to a Standing Committee, where Members of the House are both counsel and judges. The Edinburgh Corporation has behind it the whole of the ratepayers' money with which to ask for skilled counsel to support the Bill. It can call upon the pockets of those in Edinburgh who are for the Bill and those who are against it equally to contribute to fight the case in a Private Bill Committee. We who feel as strongly against the Bill as they do for it have no such pocket to go to. The voluntary organisations that are against Bill will have, if there is a long legal fight in Committee, to finance it out of their private funds. That is a very pertinent reason why the Bill should not go to a private Committee. I should have liked to say a word about the wider issue, but I am here regretfully, because this is one of the worst of all conflicts, a conflict of idealists. Those against the Bill and those for it both desire the elimination of this dreadful disease. I am profoundly convinced that those in Edinburgh who think this Bill on a compulsory basis will eradicate the disease are mistaken, and I am bound, therefore, with regret to go into the Lobby against the Bill.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Doctors differ, men are puzzled, and women are divided on this question. As one of the Members for Edinburgh I, too, am puzzled, and, although my name is on the hack of the Bill, I stand as sponsor but not at present as a supporter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: "Samuel, Samuel, where art thou?"

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am the Member for South Edinburgh, and I shall be the Member for South Edinburgh when the hon Member is not the Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I was going to say, while I am not a supporter of the Bill, I want to see it sent to a Select Committee. How can we in 3½ hours conic to a definite conclusion on this Bill when we have so much wonderful contradictory advice? We have had some of the most wonderful medical evidence submitted to us on both sides. I want that evidence sifted upstairs in a formal, legal manner. I know the other side of the question quite well, because I made it my duty to go amongst these very ladies who are opposed to the Bill, and for 2½ hours I heard the most wonderful case put up against it. Then I asked the medical officer of health to meet these very ladies. I kept my mouth shut—an example which a good many Members might imitate when they make long speeches in a Debate of this kind. I heard the medical officer of health put up an equally wonderful case, and I came away thoroughly puzzled and determined to take the action I am taking to-night. Let the Bill go to a Select Committee. Let us get evidence from every quarter, and then we shall possibly be able to ascertain the truth.

Mr. STEWART: I speak as one who is connected as a layman with this question. I have been a member of the Lunacy Board. It is quite possible that on occasions I do not know where I am, but to-night I do know where I stand on this question. I claim as a layman to have some knowledge of this trouble. As a layman on public authorities, I have been connected with this disease from 1901 until the present time. I know what it means. I have seen its ravages amongst the children, and I have seen its effects in our asylums as the cause of general paralysis. I know exactly what this disease means. If to-night the House agrees to make this Bill compulsory, for that is what it means, you are going to defeat the object of everyone who is concerned about the elimination of this disease. It is claimed by the promoters of the Bill that this is a voluntary system, that it is going to he voluntary, yet right through the speeches there has been the element of
compulsion. If a person has a child and that child is suffering from ophthalmia neonatorum, and the case is notified, the parents are to be examined and compelled to attend for treatment.
If I thought that compulsion would do what the protagonists of this Bill claim, I would support it with all the powers I have within me, but it is because I do not believe that the result will be as they claim, that I oppose it. In the case of a man who is suffering from the disease and a woman is the cause of the disease, and the woman is named, she will be compelled, under this Bill, to undergo medical examination. If a woman is examined and she makes a complaint against a man, then he has to undergo an examination. According to statements that are made, there is an ever-increasing number of people who are going voluntarily to the clinics and who are not proven on examination as suffering from the disease. The voluntary system is gradually making its way. It is gradually gaining the confidence of the people by these means, by fostering the voluntary system, by making the people understand that they have something to gain, that the sympathy of the community is not against the people who suffer from this disease, that they are not to be ostracised, but that they are victims of something from which we wish to save them. To have a clinic on those lines would do much more good in the elimination of the disease than any method of compulsion that may be undertaken.
Those people who are in Edinburgh to-day may leave it and go elsewhere, and, that is another means of defeating the objects of the Bill. You may go to Queensferry but you come to Edinburgh to be treated. After several treatments, if the doctor will not give you a clean bill of fare you cease to come to the clinic in Edinburgh, still residing in Queensferry, and they have no power to follow you there, although you may come into Edinburgh to spread the disease. If we want to deal with this disease on compulsory methods, the only sane method is to make a general Bill, if the community and the country decide in favour of it, and then we may do some good, although I have my doubts as to any compulsory system, If I believed that
compulsion would work, I would vote for it to-night and speak for it wherever I had the power, but because I believe that in the voluntary system we can manage much better, I hope the House will reject the Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: This is a question which concerns every citizen in the country. It is not only a question for Edinburgh, it goes much beyond the confines of that city. I, like other hon. Members, know exactly that compulsion feeling which you get when you find a person suffering from these diseases and you have no power to detain them. I know that longing for the power of compulsion. I remember during the War a young girl coming to me afflicted with this appalling disease. There was no means of detaining her. She was able to go out on to the streets again. If you look at a few cases like that, and cases of men who ruin their wives and children, there is something which rises up within you in the nature of a longing desire to get at the particular individual. But this is a question of a particular disease. You cannot compare it with any other disease. It is a moral disease. Our winds go back to Josephine Butler and our own Contagious Diseases Acts. In dealing with this disease man has always thought that if you could confine the individual, if you could use compulsion, you would do away with it. We have found that it does not. There was a flaw in the Contagious Diseases Acts, and instead of doing away with disease they only increased it.
I wish every hon. Member would read the life of Josephine Butler and realise what she has done towards dealing with this horrible and dreadful disease. She advocated voluntary free treatment in 1864; and after having tried every other kind of system it is now realised that only under a voluntary system have you any chance of getting at the men and women who are the victims of this disease. Like the last speaker, I should be in favour of compulsion if I thought that it would eradicate the disease, but you cannot do it in this way. It is a moral disease, and there is only one way in which you can protect the children; that is by a single moral standard. We have to consider the best method of dealing with this disease, whether it should be voluntary or compulsory. It is a
disease of which the victim is ashamed. It is not like measles, or any other such complaint. The people who are its victims, and those who are interested in the problem know that the real essence of the problem is to get the treatment as soon as possible. By this Bill you are going to risk a system of treatment that has only been tried for 10 years, but which is obviously succeeding. You are going to risk all this success in order to get a small number of defaulters. That is what it really conies to. The voluntary system, which is now at work, is to be risked. In Australia, the defaulters, under the compulsory system there have never been below 75 per cent.; whereas the defaulters in Edinburgh are 29 per cent. That should meet the criticism with regard to the defaulters.
This Bill has been changed. When it was first brought in it was much stronger. There is a type of thought which really believes in compulsion. There are two entirely different types of thought in regard to this subject. What we are up against here is what has been done in Bradford and what they wanted to do in Liverpool. That is what is wanted now in Edinburgh. One of the arguments used in favour of the Bill is the argument about the children. I want the House to remember that in Bradford where they have what is being asked for by Edinburgh, the number of babies affected with gonorrhœeal blindness and ophthalmia has increased from 6.4 per thousand births to 9.1 per thousand births. The chief medical officer of Edinburgh suggests that this increase has been due to lack of care on the part of doctors and midwives, and the conclusion therefore is that since notification in Bradford the midwives have been more careless. As a matter of fact, exactly what everybody dreaded has happened. The people are not coining forward. It is quite true that statistically the number coming forward is greater in Bradford as it is greater everywhere all over England, but the increase of the disease among the children has been greater in Bradford since compulsory treatment.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I do not understand these figures. I have a telegram from the medical officer of Bradford in favour of this Bill.

Viscountess ASTOR: I agree. The medical officer is in favour of it, but I
am saying that in Bradford the percentage of babies affected with gonorrhœal blindness and ophthalmia has increased from 6.4 per thousand births to 9.1 per thousand.

Sir B. PETO: Since what date?

Viscountess ASTOR: Since compulsory notification. When the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) was asked whether he wanted people compulsorily locked up he would not say so, but I know that, sub-consciously and at the back of his mind he feels that if you could lock up the people suffering from this disease you would get rid of it. I regret to say that you would have to lock up a very large number of the population. That is not practicable, and this Bill is not practicable in itself. I regret that the whole House did not hear the speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. As he pointed out, this Bill is neither compulsory nor voluntary. It falls between the two. It is a backward step. It is said that some women are in favour of the Bill, but I submit if they are, they do not really understand it. When the subject has been threshed out and when it is properly understood you will find that no Bill which has ever come before the House of Commons has created more disturbance in the country than this is likely to create. I am not speaking, however, from the women's point of view. I am speaking from the point of view of the effective treatment of the disease. It seems to me that we should risk our voluntary system which has succeeded so well if we go back to the compulsory method. There are many points which I desire to make, but having waited some five hours to speak I have promised Lot to take much time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three hours!"] One of the opponents of the Bill referred to the progressive state of Germany, but I would point out that Germany has only lately given up licensed houses.
It is England which has led the way on this moral question. It is really a moral issue and that is why some of us feel so strongly about it. An hon. Member said—and I thought it a very important point—that it was only the women in Edinburgh who were followed up. That is what some of us dread. We feel that, if this Bill is passed, it will fan more heavily on the women than on the men, but even if by falling heavier on
the women than on the men this disease will be cleared, it will be reasonable; but it is because we do not think that it will do anything but drive the disease under cover, and make people afraid to come forward, that we feel that it is a retrograde step. As long as there is a double standard of morals, there are bound to be more evils in the country.
It is a tragic thing that both Committees, in reporting on this disease, have said that drink was one of the causes of it. I feel very strongly about it. I do not want only to look at the results of the disease, but to go to the root of it. This is a question which it is hard to discuss, even in private, but I rejoice that the time has come when we women can get up in the House of Commons and, along with the men, discuss it in a dispassionate way. All of us have but one idea, and that is to eradicate it. It is a great tribute to the House of Commons that we have got that far in this country. Though we may differ in our methods of treatment, we all agree that our desire is to get rid of it. I hope and pray that the House will not allow this Bill to go any further, because it is a retrograde step, and if it once gets through, other authorities will want the same powers, and we shall lose the voluntary system, with men and women coming forward of their own free will. I would say one word about medical authorities, and it is that they cannot guarantee to give any real cure. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) is going to speak, and I would like to know what the Council propose to do. When a case is notified, how are they going to treat it? How are they going to confine it? How are they going to be sure that when a person has treatment he is not still spreading the disease?

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: In the time that I propose to occupy the House, I shall not develop the note on which the Noble Lady has just concluded her speech. The House has had an important Debate upon a subject of great gravity in the public health administration of this country. The Edinburgh Corporation, in preparing this Bill, recognise that something much wider than a purely local issue is involved, and the town council would
never have taken this step unless, at the end of 10 years of stiff and intensive experience of this problem, they were satisfied that the case for the Second Reading of the Bill could be established. Let us turn our minds to-night, in a preliminary way, to the national aspect of this question. If it were stated purely in terms of business, this is one of the services of local authorities to which the National Exchequer is making a particularly high contribution. The ordinary rate of contribution is 50 per cent. In this case, the State gives 75 per cent. of the approved outlay on these schemes. I say nothing at this stage of all the human and moral issues which are undoubtedly involved. But, taking it on that basis for the moment, it is perfectly clear to all of us that the taxpayers as a whole have a vital interest in seeing that this work is reasonably complete, that it covers the whole field, and that we are not continuing under the existing system some inherent weakness of importance which is undermining a great deal of the work in which we are engaged. That is the broad national or State feature on the purely financial side.
In that atmosphere, let us come to the attitude of the Scottish local authorities. For the most part, these schemes have been in force for 10 years north of the Tweed. During that time, everything possible has been done to build up the voluntary system, and with complete success. But during recent years these local authorities have drawn attention to a side of the danger which is illustrated by this Edinburgh Bill, and they have been passing resolutions in the most representative assemblies, like the Convention of Royal Burghs, urging that some form of compulsion is necessary, and that greater powers should be conferred on them in order to overtake the weakness to which I have referred. Side by side with that the Scottish Board of Health, in Reports from 1922, and on one or two other occasions, have alluded to the possibility of the consideration of some form of compulsion, and have recognised that, in all the circumstances, it is not surprising that local authorities should take this step. Therefore, first of all, we have a kind of State environment, and then we have the attitude of the local authorities in Scotland; and in that way we come to the expression of public opinion
in Edinburgh itself. It is quite true that the city, in its Parliamentary representation, is divided in the proportions of five to one.

Mr. E. BROWN: Not quite that.

Mr. GRAHAM: All that I am arguing to-night is that the Edinburgh of old, which is the only Edinburgh that matters, is in favour of this. So far from the subject not having been discussed, it has been debated from time to time before all kinds of bodies, and it is not true to suggest that at the last meeting of the corporation the great bulk of the discussion turned on the attitude, or the supposed attitude, of the English Ministry of Health.

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I had only 10 minutes. I did not suggest that in my speech. I was referring to the "published Report," which is a very different thing. I went out of my way to say that the major discussion on the Bill took place in private.

Mr. GRAHAM: That is quite true; but the point of the hon. Member's speech was that, in fact, at that critical meeting of the corporation, there was no real analysis of the merits of the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: No, no.

Mr. GRAHAM: In point of fact a long statement was made by the Town Clerk of Edinburgh on the whole merits of the Bill; and to their attitude we must add the substantial majority opinion of the Edinburgh branch of the British Medical Association, the opinion of the Edinburgh Women Citizens' Association, the support of the co-operative guilds, and of a large number of other bodies in the city. Therefore, I will not detain the House longer than is necessary to say that this question has been very widely canvassed, and that it comes forward to-night with a great body of support from the people of Edinburgh.

Miss LAWRENCE: rose—

Mr. GRAHAM: I fear I cannot give way. I have very little time left and I want to summarise the situation. The Corporation of Edinburgh were practically unanimous in support of this Measure. I find that only two members dissented, and they dissented on grounds other than the strict merits of the Bill. Consequently, I
ask the House to believe that this Measure comes forward as a considered proposition.
Let us turn more particularly to the merits of the Bill itself. We must recognise that it introduces a measure of compulsion, but we dispute the idea that the measure of compulsion introduced is going to override or undermine the voluntary system which has been worked with undeniable success in the City of Edinburgh. During the past 10 years we have been dealing with what is admittedly a great and an important medical centre. The facilities for the investigation of this and other diseases lie to the hands of the Edinburgh Corporation and other public bodies in the capital of Scotland. Under the scheme to which practically universal tribute has been paid, we make it a cardinal part of our case that we have done everything in our power with the voluntary system, and we ask the House to notice a residue over which unfortunately at the moment we have no real control. That voluntary system has been pursued to the utmost limit, but there still remains a list of defaulters which when analysed over the past five years runs into between 850, 900 and 1,000 people who gave up treatment at various stages. They have passed back into the community, and we have no real power to compel them to take continued treatment. Consequently, they are a grave danger to themselves, and, above all, to innocent people.
We have been asked: "Why do you not pursue your voluntary method under which you have been admittedly very successful?" The simple reason is that we have taken all the steps we can take, and we have put all possible pressure upon these people who have discontinued their treatment. The lady almoner has visited a large number of eases, and the Corporation is satisfied that we have now reached the point at which this defaulting class is, so to speak, steady or fixed, and all that we are doing, and all that we are trying to do in existing conditions apparently makes no real impression upon that part of the problem. A very great deal has been said to-night about the merits of the voluntary and the compulsory principle, but, after all, the House of Commons, which usually takes a perfectly fair and dispassionate view of these problems, must recognise that in a case of this
kind, and in connection with a disease of this gravity, a very large public interest is involved.
The House will at once recognise that, in certain diseases which many people do not regard as anything like so urgent or dangerous as this disease, compulsion has, in fact, been carried to an extreme point. That has been done with the intention to protect the community. But the suggestion is that in the case of this particular disease there is a moral element, or, rather, an element of vice, which makes it very important that it should be treated on somewhat different lines. I think that an argument of that description can be altogether exaggerated, and for my part I would devote far more attention and far more consideration to the grave danger of this class of people to themselves and to the people around them, and I would of set purpose, in a matter of that kind, make more of the strict public interest. There is not the least doubt that a grave danger is present in the position as we find it in Edinburgh and other communities under existing conditions, and if we are able to say to-night that, having done everything in our power under the voluntary system, and having reached the conclusion that there is an apparently static condition affecting 1,000 people year by year who are going back into the community, I submit that we have established our case, at least for investigation by a Select Committee.
The Government to-night found themselves in part on certain public documents relating to venereal disease; but the Government themselves, in the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland, give the case away. The Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases undoubtedly relied on purely voluntary measures, and it also said that notification at that stage was not desirable; but in the pages of the Report of that Royal Commission there are indications of a quite definite recognition that conditions might arise, as a result of experience in this sphere, in which some different plan might be urgently required; and to that we are entitled to add to-night the recommendation of the Trevethin Committee. I do not make more than a passing reference to it, because hon. Members have already quoted it in full; but that Committee,
while maintaining in substance the central principle of the Report of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases, indicated that you might have a state of affairs in which this compulsory method, or some such method, was desirable in appropriate centres. Our case in Edinburgh is simply that, so far from running counter to the broad purpose of the Royal Commission's Report and of the Trevethin Committee's Report, we have embarked upon a step which those two documents, read together in regard to that part of the problem, concede that some day might be strictly required.
It may be suggested that, if we take a step of that kind, we are undermining our voluntary scheme in Edinburgh; iii other words, that the two systems cannot exist side by side. It is our idea in Edinburgh that we can quite easily make this part of the scheme ancillary to the broad voluntary method that we intend to pursue, and I altogether dispute the argument that we are going to kill the voluntary method by what we propose. In point of fact, it may he argued with very great force that we might in some ways strengthen the voluntary method by the presence of powers of this description, and it is remarkable that within recent weeks, when the discussion of this whole question has been before the public, and when in fact a Debate on these very compulsory powers has taken place, there has been an increase, within limits, in the number of people who are corning for treatment and advice. I do not think that in the community as a whole there is any real anxiety on this point, and I am perfectly satisfied that in any event it is our duty in the House of Commons to give a Select Committee of our colleagues the chance of investigating whether the Corporation of Edinburgh, on all the facts, can establish its case on this point. The voluntary method will remain, and we propose to try to complete the structure of our work, so to speak, by such powers as will enable us to deal with defaulters and one or two other classes, and so prevent the main part of our work from being undermined.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland used another argument. He suggested that there might be a case for compulsory notification, or,
at all events, for a Bill on general lines, and I gathered from his speech that much of his fears turned on the repercussion of the adoption of this principle in Edinburgh on other local authorities in different parts of the land. At the moment there is no prospect of any general legislation. It is quite true that the corporation of Glasgow almost immediately will promote a Bill which aims at compulsory notification. The Government to-night gave no indication of their attitude to a Measure of that kind. If we are driven to recognise that general compulsory or comprehensive legislation may still be a comparatively long way off, and if there is still to he a plea for more experience in the localities, we are to be content with continuing in our own city and, for all we know, other cities are to be content to continue, a method which contains this central weakness and loss, and which must weaken the efficiency of our work. Hon. Members behind have reminded the House that in the treatment of certain infectious diseases Edinburgh was, in fact, in 1879, 10 years ahead of the general legislation which followed in 1889. There is not the least doubt, that on any kind of scientific basis, especially in regard to a disease of this character, you should have freedom of experiment, and that a great corporation with these great facilities should be allowed a chance of even exceptional methods, especially when that corporation undertakes during the Committee stage of the Measure to insert the most complete safeguards, subject to the central principle of the proposal being maintained.
These are, broadly and generally, the arguments which have influenced us in Edinburgh. I suggest that the House would incur a very grave responsibility if it denied access to a Select Committee for the proper investigation of this scheme. Coming for a moment to the Parliamentary or House of Commons point of view, what, strictly speaking, is the attitude which the Government adopt? The Government simply say that on the advice of these Departments they do not think the Bill should have a Second Reading. I wish to remind hon. Members that the Whips are not put on, and that, in point of fact,, there is to-night a free vote of the House of Commons; and that, in any case, there
is the complete safeguard in the later stages of this Measure on the Floor of the House, if by any chance the Committee proceedings are regarded as unsatisfactory or undesirable.
What is the attitude of the House of Commons, generally speaking, on the Second Reading of a private Bill? It was very well defined by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport on the Second Reading of the Railway Bills in this House. He said that, generally speaking, the House of Commons did not refuse a Second Reading to a Bill unless its proposals were manifestly contrary to the public interest. I hardly think it can be seriously suggested that an experiment and investigation of this kind by a great local centre like the city of Edinburgh can be described as hostile or contrary to the public interest. But in any case all the facts bearing on that point are precisely the material which a Select Committee of this House should analyse and into which they should go in the very greatest detail. I submit that on all these facts, and keeping in view this consideration, that the disease with which we are dealing is one of grave national importance, the corporation has made its case for the Second Reading of the Bill, and the House reserves perfect freedom to take any action it pleases at the later stages of the measure.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: rose—

Sir P. FORD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to put in a word as from the Dundee Corporation and a short statement from Dr. Burgess, medical officer of that city, who says:
Our experience is such as to suggest that further powers are necessary. I find that during the last four years an average of only 36 per cent. of the patients who ceased to attend our centres did so because they were certified cured, and of the remaining 64 per cent. a very small proportion were transfered to other centres.
The doctor favours some compulsory measures, making it a legal duty on the medical practitioner to notify the disease. Dr. Burgess also holds that before costly measures are introduced facilities for free treatment of all infected persons must be available to every person. Facilities
must not only be of the nature of clinics for out-patients, but also of wards for in-patients. He concludes:
Personally, I hope the Edinburgh Bill will reach the Statute Book. I am sure the experience gained would be of very great value to everyone and would make it possible to frame more effective general legislation at a later date.

Doctor Averill, in charge of the treatment centre, also contends that all practitioners, and not venereal disease officers only, should have to notify cases.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 156.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Albery, Irving James
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Preston, William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Hayday, Arthur
Price, Major C. W. M.


Batey, Joseph
Hilton, Cecil
Raine, Sir Walter


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bromley, J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Savery, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morg[...] (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy,
Sexton, James


Connolly, M.
Lawson, [...] James
Shinwell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lowth, T.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sullivan, J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacIntyre, I.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dalton, Hugh
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Macquisten, F. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Dunnico, H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Varley, Frank B.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waddington, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Windsor, Walter


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Philipson, Mabel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Grotrian, H. Brent
Pilcher, G.
Dr. Drummond Shiels and Sir Patrick Ford.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harney, E. A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Cope, Major William
Harrison, G. J. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hartington, Marquess of


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hills, Major John Waller


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Baker, Walter
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duncan, C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barr, J.
Fermoy, Lord
Kelly, W. T.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Fielden, E. B.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, W.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bethel, A.
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bondfield, Margaret
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kirkwood, D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gardner, J. P.
Lamb, J. O.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lawrence, Susan


Briant, Frank
Gosling, Harry
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Broad, F. A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lumley, L. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lunn, William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Margesson, Capt. D.


Campbell, E. T.
Groves, T.
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clayton, G. C.
Hammersley, S. S.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Naylor, T. E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Paling, W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, S. R.


Penny, Frederick George
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Riley, Ben
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ropner, Major L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Withers, John James


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Sutton, J. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Wright, W.


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thurtle, Ernest



Salmon, Major I.
Tomlinson, R. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Dr.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Viant, S. P.
Li[...] e.


Scurr, John




Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

It being after Eleven of the clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EX-MAHARAJAH OF NABHA.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. MARDY JONES: The matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House refers to the arrest of the ex-Maharajah of Nabha on 19th February last, and his deportation to South India, 2,000 miles away from his wife and five young children, who are anxiously watching his fate. I under-
stand the warrant for his arrest was issued under Regulation 3 of the Act of 1818. This Act should be as obsolete as its use is barbaric in the 20th century. Under this warrant no charge is made against him, and it would appear the Government of India do not intend to place him on trial. It appears their policy is to detain him indefinitely. I put the following supplementary question yesterday:
whether the arrest of this man and Isis detention without any charge being brought against him, has not caused considerable dissatisfaction in India, especially in the Sikh community, of which he is the reputed leader?
The Noble Lord replied:
The only dissatisfaction caused in India has been among the notorious and disloyal agitators."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1928; col. 179, Vol. 216.]
That insinuation is entirely untrue, because many of the Indian papers made strong protests about it, and strong resolutions have been carried at many public meetings in some, of the largest assemblies all over India with regard to this action of the Government. The question was raised in tile Legislative Assembly on 22nd February, not by notorious disloyal agitators but by some of the most prominent and respected leaders of Indian political opinion. A Motion for the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance was moved, for instance, by Sardar Gulab Singh, the only Sikh representative in the Legislative Assembly. It was natural that he should move the Motion because the the ex-Maharajah is a Sikh prince and a religious leader of the Sikh community. Another man, who cannot be said to be a notorious agitator, Mr.
Srinivasa Iyengar, the Member for Madras, also protested strongly against this action of the Government. He was also the President of the All-India National Congress in 1926. He is an ex-Advocate-General of the Madras Government. I mention that because obviously he cannot be charged by his Government with being a notorious agitator, disloyal to the Crown. Another well-known National Leader, Pandit Malaviya, the Member for Allahabad, also protested very strongly against this action. He certainly is one of the most orthodox Hindu leaders in India, and to suggest that Pandit Malaviya, of Allahabad, is an agitataor, disloyal to the Crown, is equivalent to saying that the Noble Lord himself is an agitator. Mr. Lajpat Rai, the leader of the Nationalist party, also protested.
Lastly, I would call attention to the fact that one who is reputed to be with the Government, Sir Hari Singh Gour, member for the Central Provinces, a very big barrister, who has a reputation as an authority on Indian penal laws, also protested very strongly that this action was illegal. I mention these circumstances to rebut the insinuation made yesterday by the Noble Lord, and to point out that there is a considerable and growing feeling in India about the injustice of this action. The Chamber of Princes at Delhi is powerless, as a legislative assembly, to deal with the case because the Government of India opposed discussion of it in India. They were afraid to face the music and sheltered themselves behind the technicality that the Parliament of India has no jurisdiction over the native States and princes. Therefore, we are left to bring the matter before the British Parliament, who in the last resort are responsible for the good government of British India; and also at the request of several of the prominent Indian leaders I have mentioned and members of the Sikh community itself. It is the duty of the Government of India to prove, and not merely to assert, that this man has been disloyal to the Crown. In 1915 Sir Michael O'Dwyer, who was then Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, admitted frankly in a Report submitted to the Government of India, that as far as the Maharajah himself was concerned he was
quite loyal to the Crown, and we have yet no evidence that he is not loyal. His chief crime appears to have been what is regarded as a virtue in any Britisher. He has refused consistently blind obedience to the political agents of the Viceroy. For the last, 20 years he has been persecuted for his independence of mind, and his frank aid of the Nationalist cause in India. It is because he has not readily come under the pressure of the bureaucrats that this thing has been done against him. Six days ago I submitted a series of questions to the Noble Lord, which I asked him specifically to answer, and I understand that he is prepared to do so to-night, namely:

"(1) The Maharajah of Nabha having been arrested under Regulation 3 of 1818, and that being a Regulation of the Government of India, why are questions with regard to the matter forbidden in the Indian Legislative Assembly?
(2) Is the ex-Maharajah regarded as a foreigner, and, if so, is there anything to prevent his moving for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court in India for his release, or applying to the Privy Council?
(3) Will the Under-Secretary of State for India say whether he considers that Regulation 3 4 1818 applicable to ruling princes or to a prince or chief under the suzerainty of His Majesty?
(4) Will the Under-Secretary inform the House of the case against the ex-Maharajah and whether it is proposed to bring any action in any Indian Court?
(5) If not, for how tong do they intend to deprive him of his liberty, without any charge being brought against him?
(6) On what grounds can the Under-Secretary of State for India defend the separation of the ex-Maharajah from his wife and five minor children?
(7) Has the ex-Maharanee been induced or urged to write or sign any document since the arrest of her husband, and to what effect?"
I trust we shall have answers to these questions to-night. I urge the British Government to reconsider their attitude and make up their mind to state the definite charges of disloyalty they have against him, and grant him what is the elementary right of British justice—a fair and an open trial. I submit that on grounds of justice and public policy a demand for a fair and an open trial cannot be refused. What have the Government of India to fear from such a trial? if they can prove their case, they will have vindicated their action, and it will clear the air. But if they cannot; if they
refuse such a trial, then they are open to the charge that they are afraid to face the facts. Although I have a great deal more to say, I will leave it there, in order to give the Noble Lord time for his reply.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I must express my gratitude to the hon. Member for the courtesy he has shown me in consenting to postpone this discussion in order to suit my convenience, and because I was suffering from a slight indisposition before the Easter Recess; and, in the second place, for his courtesy in sending me in advance the questions he proposed to ask on this matter to-night. I have only a few moments in which to deal with this important case, but before I come to the specific questions put to me, I should like to recall to the attention of the House—the matter has been dealt with by question and answer already—the circumstances which arose in the past in this matter. In the year 1923 an inquiry was held into the administration of the Nabha State and as a result charges brought against the Maharajah of Nabha by the Patiala Durbar were found to be well founded. Grave eases of injustice were disclosed in the Nabha State; eases which would not receive support from any hon. member in the House. No hon. Member could possibly support the very serious cases of mat-administration that had gone on in that State, and for which it was held the Maharajah was very largely responsible. In consequence, he was divested of his administrative powers in the State, although he retained certain prerogatives, but he retained those prerogatives on the distinct understanding and undertaking which he gave to refrain from certain actions, which I mentioned in answer to a question the other day. The first, question which the hon. Member asks is:
The Maharajah of Nabha having been arrested under Regulation ITT of 1818, and that being a Regulation of the Government of India, why are questions with regard to the matter forbidden in the Indian Legislative Assembly?
The hon. Member said that the Government of India had sheltered itself behind a technicality. That is entirely unfounded. They never raised the matter at all. The President of the Assembly,
Mr. Patel, gave his ruling on the question—I have not time to quote it, nor do I propose to comment upon it—but I hope the hon. Member will not attempt to suggest that Mr. Patel was actuated in any way by the attitude of the Government. He gave his ruling, and it was not in order to discuss it. It could not be discussed. It was like a ruling of Mr. Speaker in this House, and I hope the hon. Member does not suggest that he was actuated by any other motive than giving a ruling on the Standing Orders. The second question which the hon. Member asks is:
Is the ex-Maharajah regarded as a foreigner, and, if so, is there anything to prevent his moving for a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court in India for his release, or applying to the Privy Council?
It is expressly provided in Section 491 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure that the powers of the High Court in India as to Habeas Corpus do not apply to persons detained under the Bengal Regulation, and therefore he could not make an application. The third question which the hon. Member asks is:
Will the Under-Secretary of State for India say whether he considers that Regulation III of 1818 is applicable to ruling princes or to a prince or chief under the suzerainty of His Majesty?
When the ex-Maharajah severed his connection with the State in 1923, he ceased to be a ruling Prince. There was, therefore, no question as to his deposition in February last. He was merely deprived of his remaining rights, privileges and dignities, to which I have referred already.
The fourth question was:
Will the Tinder-Secretary inform the House of the case against the ex-Maharajah and whether it is proposed to bring any action in any Indian Court?
I have given the gravamen of the charge against him in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) yesterday. It was that the Government of India had evidence that the ex-Maharajah has been flagrantly and continually violating the obligation of continued loyalty to the British Government which he voluntarily gave in 093, also violating thereby the Sanad which was given to the rulers of Nabha in 1990. The Government of India had evidence that he has been actively engaged in propaganda and has associated with
notorious agitators, and has spent considerable sums in Press campaigns in several provinces to that end; and has held meetings and demonstrations in various places to arouse public sympathy in his favour, all of which acts constitute a breach of the undertaking which he gave in 1923. It is not proposed to bring any action against the ex-Maharajah in an Indian Court of Law.
The fifth question was:
How long is it intended to deprive him of his liberty without any charge being brought against him?
I have also replied to that question in my answer to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). I said the ex-Maharajah was informed of the facts stated in the communiqué of 19th February. No period has been fixed for his detention, which must obviously depend on his future conduct: I was also asked on what grounds can I defend the separation of the ex-Maharajah from his wife and five minor children. The Government of India have passed` no Order enjoining separation from his wife and children. The Maharanee is free, if she so chooses, to visit him in his place of detention and to take her children with her. The hon. Member smiles, but she is perfectly free to do so if she chooses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is there room for them to stay there?"] The last question was:
Has the Maharanee been induced or urged to write or sign any document since the arrest of her husband, and to what effect?
The Maharanee has nut been induced or urged by the Government of India to sign any document. She has exchanged kharitas with the Viceroy in which she has expressed the desire to remain for the present devoted to her
children instead of taking her son to Nabha for his intallation as ruler of the State, as the Viceroy suggested. As the hon. Member is aware, the son of the ex-Maharajah is the ruler of the State. I think in the short time at my disposal I have answered the questions put to me fairly fully. All I can say is that if hon. Members opposite knew the full story—

Mr. MARDY JONES: Let us have it.

Earl WINTERTON: They can have it by the very simple process of reading the history of the case which has been published in the communiqué from the very start. I supplied a copy to the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. If they studied that communiqué, and if they knew the evidence which was produced at the committee of inquiry, they would not be here supporting a man who, in the administration of his State, showed gross injustice to subjects, behaved scandalously to a neighbouring State, and generally showed himself utterly unfitted to rule. It is very curious that the only ruling Prince in India to get any sympathy from the Labour party is the only ruling Prince who has been a disloyal subject of the King Emperor.

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I say that many of the replies that have been given are misleading and untrue, and I hope we shall have a further opportunity to discuss this matter? The point is, why do you not give this man the opportunity to face the statements which you are making, and rebut them if he can?

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.